Should muhammad ali be recognised as a 4 times champion?

Three possibilities:

-a simple oversight. Not many people remember that Terrel was a belt holder. Back then there was only 1 champ, it wasnt until alis exile that the title really got split. Most people prefer not to remember that fight because of the sheer brutality and enmity between them (whats my name?!)

-despite Alis enormous popularity, many people still hate the man to this day and try to discredit him any wat they can

-a combination of the above points+Holyfields team taking advantage in order to build marketing and hype for Holyfield as the "first" 4x champ. Id do the same thing, its smart as hell and probably sold tickets. Holy was pretty old and couldnt generate the same interest as his tyson/bowe/lewis days.

 

The answer to the question asked is no.Ali is no 4-time champ as he was already champ when he regained the WBA belt.Holyield thus the only 4-time champ.

 

To put it another way, Mayweather nearly became undisputed when he beat Pacquiao who had the WBO. He was then stripped for some stupid reason and Bradley won the vacant belt by beating Vargas. If Mayweather chose to fight and then beat Bradley then hed be a 2x Wbo champion. It wouldnt matter if he had two or three other straps at the time he re won it.

Its really not that complicated. In the case of Ali were not talking about the "true" lineal title were strictly talking about belts. Terrel WAS the legitimate WBA belt holder just like Bradley was THE WBO belt holder. Ali beat Terrel, therefore Ali was the first 4x "heavyweight belt holder".

 

4-time beltholder yes.The thread relates to 4-time champ and the answer is no.

 

He is a 4 time WBA belt holder

 

Agreed.

Around the time, fairly recently, of the opening of the African American History Museum, a local Washington DC news station ran a short report on it and how it included a Muhammad Ali exhibit. The reporter pointed out that Ali was a 3-time WBA heavyweight champion. Not 3-time WORLD heavyweight champion, but WBA champion. She made a point to single out the WBA belt. I found that curious and wondered why, if they were only going to mention his WBA titles, that they wouldn't mention one of his WBA title wins and only give him credit for winning it three times.

It just shows how confusing boxing titles are to the general public.

 

A belt holder is a "champ" but not necessarily "the man" at that weight class (lineal).

Therefore he is the first 4x heavyweight champ. If he isnt then neither is Holyfield, end of discussion.

 

My point is that Holyfield regained the championship when he was not champ before.That is why Holy is in my view rightfully recognized as a 4-time champ. Ali was already champ and thus did not become champ again. It is as simple as that. Some of you guys have a different interpretation but that does not seem to be the general view.

 

Interesting, and a VERY good and correct point.

 

Holyfield is the only HW to enter a ring 4 times with no belt yet walk out with a belt.

Only thrice did Ali enter the ring with no belt yet walk out with a belt.