Someone, in the Evander Holyfield top 5 thread, said that Evander was the only 4-time heavyweight champ. This is based on his WBA title wins against Tyson and Ruiz. But if we're going to count those as championship reigns, don't we also have to count Muhammad Ali as a 4-time champ? He won the WBA title against Liston, Terrell, Foreman, and Spinks. Another one: the IBF and WBO. Both have been around for a while now. 30+ years. Both are considered major belts and are used to establish claims of multiple reigns or multiple division champions. Somehow the IBF was considered legitimate from the start, while the WBO wasn't. "Ray Mercer is a former WBO champ." "Well, no. The WBO wasn't considered legitimate then." "But it is now?" "Yes." I mean, I get the circumstances in each case. Basically it comes down to "things change." But it makes recognition of who did what in boxing maddeningly inconsistent. Probably some of the biggest inconsistencies involve fans who love a certain fighter for a reason, then hate a different fighter for the same reason. Another is the "a fighter is only as good as his last fight" thing. It's amazing how guys can go from being considered amongst the best in the world after one fight, to being a total worthless "how could anyone have ever thought he was great?" bum after their next fight, to being considered an all time great in the fight after that. Evander Holyfield is the epitome of this. What other inconsistencies drive you around the bend? I'm thinking more in terms of how boxing fans perceive things rather than how boxing is run. THAT'S a bottomless can of worms.
I actually did a thread on that, Ali should be a four time champ if we count Holyfield. Seem to remember, some agreed, but others not so much. Because Muhammad was seen as the champ already it didn't count as such. Suppose it's how you view it. Good post by the way.
The IBF gained quick credibility because it decided to name Lineal champs as its first champions. Larry Holmes was considered the Lineal champ. The WBC was demanding he fight Greg Page. He was trying to unify with Coetze (the WBA champ). Long story short, Holmes dumped the WBC strap and the IBF named him its first Heavyweight Champ. The IBF did the same with Donald Curry, at the time the unified Welterweight Champ. When the IBF formed, they simply presented their IBF to Donald Curry. They did the same with Marvin Hagler. Unified Middleweight champion. Here you go, Marvin. Here is our belt. Same with Michael Spinks, unbeaten, unified Light heavyweight Champion. "Here is our belt, Michael. You are our champ." The IBF just picked the top names and said, "Here is our belt. You are our champ. Whatever you want to do is fine." Of course, that would change later. But that's how they got immediate credibility. As for the WBO, they took the totally opposite position. Mike Tyson was the unified World Heavyweight Champion. He was the biggest star in the whole sport. He was known all over the world. But when the WBO was created they decided to name the winner of the Johnny DuPlooy-Francesco Damiani bout as their champ ... which just sunk them right out of the gate. In 1989, Marlon Starling was considered the World Welterweight champ after he beat Honeyghan. The WBO announces its new welterweight champ is Genaro Leon, after he beat a journeyman. And Leon didn't even want it. He just gave it up. Instead of presenting titles to the recognized world champs, they decided to match lesser guys for their belts. And so their titles were viewed as lesser belts. When nobodies like Leon just toss them aside, you have a problem.
