i was furious when during the countdown to jmm-pac they said...

What's ridiculous is your claim of someone unifying a title that they not only don't have, but that they never had. How the hell do you unify something you don't have?

 

from boxrec

"Vazquez was stripped of the WBA title after for fighting Naseem Hamed, the WBO champion."

Hamed unified all 4 titles no doubt.

who gives a **** that the WBA stripped Vasquez just cause Hamed had the WBO, despite that Vasquez had already made 4 title defences.

 

Answer me this, has Pavlik unified all four belts?

 

by beating the guy who has it.

Pavlik didn't unify the 4 belts they were already unified by Hopkins who lost to Taylor who lost to Pavlik

 

There's plenty of doubt. He never had the WBA belt, and he never had all belts at once. I don't think he ever had more than two belts at once.

 

He didn't directly fight for them, so no. Hamed DID directly fight for them. But Pavlik IMO is still the undisputed Lineal MW champion. The others are just title holders. If you beat all the other title holders, whether they give you the belts or not, you have unified IMO.

Either way, the point of the thread and the point of contention was Pacquiao's standing at 126. He beat the man who beat the man.

 

Unify means to merge, or to make one. A unified champ means that more than one belt has to be held by 1 person. Hamed never held the WBA belt, meaning he never unified that title

 

It doesn't matter wether he physically had the belts or not he unified the titles by beating the title holder of each sanctioning body while remaining undefeated during that period.

 

How am I owned when you guys aren't answering the question? Some of you guys need to open a dictionary. Lineal and unified are two different things. They have two different meanings. I ask if Pavlik unified all 4 belts and you answer tht he's the lineal champion. Do you not see the problem with this?

 

lol well said. Its like someone could beat Joe Calzaghe tommorow but just because they werent fighting for the belt that guy wouldnt be champion? Champions are made in the ring, not in paper. If the sanctioning bodies refuse to give the belt for whatever reason, it still doesnt change the fact that the champ was beaten in the ring. Which is why I think the ABC is BS, the ring is not perfect but it has a much clearer view than any of the belts of who the champs really are.

 

Who is the LHW champion Big Reg?

 

He never even won the belt. Let's not going around making up our own definitions of words.