Should muhammad ali be recognised as a 4 times champion?

Your first mistake is not understanding that the belts don't count.

 

Tyson beat Spinks to win the true championship. He lost that championship to Douglas.

 

I know what you mean, but the whole premise of the thread is to count them.
If we do count them, it's 4 WBA.

 

In this scenario could you claim Tyson is 3 time champion?

He unified the belts pre prison, lost them to Douglas, won it back from Bruno, was stripped for not fighting Lewis and then won the belt from Seldon?

 

Yes,Muhammad was four time WBA champ.

 

no, regaining the wba title he was already stripped of shouldn't count.

Ali was boastful, but even he didn't try to call himself a 4 time champion.

He knew he was the real champion and didn't consider Terrell to be a champion. He was just taking back what was rightfully his all along.

It would count in today's watered down boxing politics, though.

 

Yeah, but Ali was the linear champ, so Spinks became the linear champ. Then, Ali became linear champ by beating Spinks.

Norton was given the WBC title stripped from Spinks. Then, when Holmes beat Norton he was not immedately thought of as the #1 Heavyweight because he didn't win the linear title. In retrospect, he was the #1 heavyweight in therms of ability. But, at the time everyone considered Spinks the "real" champ because he beat Ali, who was the linear champ. So when Ali regained the title from Spinks, everyone said Ali had regained the title. So, he became a 3 time Heavyweight Champ. Historically, there had been only one HW champ except when Ali was stripped by the WBA and when the WBA had that bogus tournament after Ali was stripped by everyone in 1967.

 

cool.

 

I mean technically yeah. You cant prop Holyfield up and claim he was the first to win a "title" 4 times when in fact Ali was. This is why people take the lineal belt more seriously in the first place. Holyfield wasnt a 4x lineal champ. So yeah by modern logic Ali was a 4x champ and by that logic, the greatest.