How badly are some ATGS legacies hit if there was only one belt per weight?

I think, for the most part, the guys credited were the best in the division at the time so they wouldn't actually be hit that hard in terms of legacy.

I mean the SMW division was brand new and Leonard and Hearns were arguably the best two there anyways.

Duran would never have held the LMW title and probably not the MW title neither.

Floyd would have had to face Zoo. Pac would have had to face Floyd sooner and wouldn't have held a LMW title.

But I don't think it would have a big difference. Guys like Broner, Robert Guerrero, Ricky Burns wouldn't be multiple champions but surely no one credits them as greats anyway.

 

Leonard could have beat the other light middle champs when he beat Kalule who may have been the best light middle at that point anyway, Ray won the super middle and light heavy titles by beating Lalonde which is stupid anyway but also Leonard wasn`t taking any risks at that stage of his career so may have ducked the best super middle in the world at that time but I couldn`t even name him and Charles Williams may have been the best light heavy at that point and Ray wouldn`t have fought any LH that was better than Lalonde, I don`t know if Hill was champ by then because he would have beaten the Sugar that struggled with Lalonde. Mayweather may have cherry picked to avoid a unified or single champ but the fact is I don`t think it hurts his legacy because he beat very good fighters and nobody could beat him who fought in his era anyway. Manny would have struggled more than Floyd but again I`d have to name the champs because there were some eras when he wouldn`t have stood a chance. If McCallum had been a unified champ at light middle in the same decade as Pac he would have destroyed him and Norris would have also. Hearns beat Benitez at light middle so that means he would have beat any champ at that weight in that year, Hearns dodged Nunn and I think they were champs in the same year, Nunn was much better against Roldan than Hearns was as he was nearly knocked out in their barnstormer. Tommy wasn`t very good by the time he won the super middle WBO title even though he was improved later when winning the light heavy title from Hill Barkley exposed him as a faded talent in his next fight but in 1987 when he knocked out Andries I don`t if anyone could have stopped him at light heavy at that time, De La Hoya may also have struggled a lot more, it defo made things easier for these guys.

 

I fully agree with you. I think a lot of fighters post 80's and multiple titlist are flattered and gain kudos against old timers and contenders of the day when it comes to ATG standings. There used to be a saying, a good littlun will never beat a good biggun and this was true in general except for a handful of real elite fighters. In the post 80's days it's been easier to do this when you've got lesser higher division champs to pick from. The stats prove it. I'm not saying that some of these multiple champs weren't great but they couldn't of done it without multiple titles. This is really putting it out there but Tommy Hearns, great as he was was never really the best at his weight in any division he won world titles at. You could say that Leonard was the best welterweight at the time he won his title. Palomino was lineal so Cuevas might not of been champ. Forget light middle because it didn't exist in the old days. At middleweight Marvin was the champ and light heavy was not at it's greatest when he got his chance there. In reality as a fighter who'd never been champ at welter or middleweight he'd of had to fight his way through the lightheavies and might never of got to a title shot. This is not to knock Hearns he was great it's just to put into perspective what winning an undisputed title meant back in the day and how good some of those perennial contenders were. I picked Hearns out of the hat because he's probably one of the most high profile multi titlists of the day. Look into any multi titlist and have a think about it. The fact is almost every world champ of the last 30 getting on 40 years now wouldn't have been a titlist at any weight if there was only one champ. you'd could even go back to the early 70's with this one.. Like I said, this is not to say we haven't had great fighters since then, It's just to put things into perspective.

 

Duran never won the light welter title he just had a couple fights but a writer claimed he looked even better at light welter than he did at lightweight! Floyd probably would have beaten Tzyu but may have avoided him.

 

I disagree slightly with this. Hearns was definitely the best LMW in the world without doubt and he was arguably the best MW when he won the title. I think he was the best LHW and beat the best LHW to earn that title.

But, talking only about the traditional 8 divisions, I think Hearns would have struggled to ever be champ.

 

Yes, that's what I'm talking about, traditional 8. I count Tommy as an ATG but even when he won the middleweight title he fought Roldan, a good strong fighter but there was a new young middleweight crowd coming on to the scene then that he didn't fight although he did a great job on James Schuler. The lightheavies wasn't at it's greatest at the time he won that though I thought the Virgil Hill fight was a great exhibition of boxing. Imagine if he'd had to fight and I know they were before him Saad Muhammad, Qawi, Mustafa Muhammad or even an up and coming Michael Moorer.. Just putting things into perspective and I used Tommy because he was great even if titles weren't on the line in those winning fights.

 

forgot to mention Spinks, a real world champ.

 

It's an interesting one, I mean many people class Kalambay as the number 1 MW until the Nunn fight but there's no way I favour Sumbu to outbox Hearns at that time. It was a vacant belt that Hearns won but I think he was top dog there, until the Barkley loss anyways.

But it's close between Sumbu, Nunn and Hearns as to who the top MW was. Right up until Nunn stops Sumbu you could argue any of the belt holders number 1 imo.

I personally think the top fighter went
Hagler - > Leonard - > Hearns - > Barkley - > Duran - > Nunn. In chronological order.

He was very fortunate though in that the LW division existed, Hagler retired and LHW guys refused to unify.

But as I said I think at the time he beat Roldan and Hill he was the number 1 in those divisions.

 

It would wipe out Roy Jones's resume as it stands.

I guess that in that scenario, he would have taken different fights.

 

Nunn was best middle when he beat Frank Tate.

 

Arguably so. That's the problem isn't it. With only one belt Hearns, Nunn and Sumbu would have to face each other.

I think Hearns beats them but we'll never know.

 

He was great and you've got a valid point but he was my best fighter off the top of my head. i'm sure you know where I'm coming from

 

I do get you, I mean you could argue he was very unlucky to be in an era with arguably the best ever WW and MW fighter in history.

I think guys who are classed as great would always find a way to achieve greatness.

 

It's not all about titles