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

Apologies, chap. I just read your post about adding 'when,' just before I commented with the same. sorry for my repetition. But great minds think alike. And mine too, sometimes

 

a world title is top level, as long as its recognised at the time, not a frekin wbu one etc.

but defending unification/undisputed, (or "big fight" with "big opponent/hofer/atg") is the only thing that goes beyond it.

 

Roy Jones Jr and James Toney.

 

What about at light-heavy? I guess Michaczewski was WBO titlist and Jones never fought him so, yeah, I suppose that doesn't strictly count.

The problem back in the early to mid 90s was that it was virtually impossible for fighters to unify titles as there was a collective disincentive that each organisation put in place for doing that. They would strip fighters of their titles for trying to fight other titlists. So Mike McCallum was stripped of his other WBA title for meeting IBF titlist James Toney. In that environment, it's hard to blame fighters for not unifying. At least now there's a bit more of an understanding that unifications will make a fight more appealing and the organisationa waive mandatories for the benefit of these fights a little less reluctantly.

 

I guess that one title, would have made a fight between Jones and Michaczewski almost inevitable.

 

No disputing he was an ATG but I wonder how Wilfredo Gomez's career would of panned out if there was no super bantam division and no split titles. Where would his career of actually lain, bantam or feather...or both?