If you have less then 3 belts then you are a beltholder not a champ

I would agree with this 95% of the time

 

OK, thanks for replying. And you are right, no one can force them. So those rules on the number of belts one holds, and the position that goes with the number of belts, is not realistic, according to your own admission.

Making a fight, and negotiating a fight, can be incredibly difficult, often times with road blocks that are out of anyone's control at the moment. That's why it's so hard to unify today.

 

Gayest thread of the week

 

You don't speak for purists. If it's not even attainable, how in the world can it be accurate? Especially with the couple of scenarios I presented which shows the fallacy in your "Number of belts" logic. It's a good effort, and interesting, I'll admit that much. But it does nothing to fix our current problem.

 

Is there a particular lineage we are talking bout? For the most part, I think the lineages are fine. But we have the MW Division, where the last linear champ dropped his belts and moved to jrMW, while the top guy has 3 belts, but not the linear title. And at LtHW, where we have a unified champ in Ward, but linear champ in stevenson. It's a mess in those divisions.

 

Yeah, that's the best bet, a tourny. That was what Don King did with the Middle weight division 15 years ago, making Hopkins the linear MW champ. SHould happen more often. Just done in a better manner then the Super 6, which was fine in principle, but badly done.

 

Hes nothing but a court jester and if Joshua kos Klitscko he`ll be the king.

 

Way to discredit Jorge Paez' entire career

 

Let me guess your from that side of the pond right? No bias there.