Do you give a fighter for doing it? I'm of the school of thought that unifying a title is no small feat, especially with the organizational bull**** with those matches being made. Having to usually be a champion for a long period of time while the matches are being made. And you have 3 if not more titles to win, even more if your going to Roy Jones route and collecting them en masse. Anyway, alphabet soup or not it can make things interesting, and very hard on fighters. So much how credit do you give them for doing so, whether it's Lenox Lewis or Donald Curry?
Depends on the opposition. If the opposition is good, lots of credit, if the opposition is bad not so much credit, and if the opposition is somewhere in between, well you know the rest.
Absolutely, depends. A SRL beating Hearns is obviously immense, whilst say Pryor beating Mamby, Gomez beating Cruz, Hearns beating Moore or Arguello beating Arturo Frias would not have been in the same class.
Asuming that the four tittles are held by the best four in the division than it is an very impresive feat.
How often would that be seen tho. Back in my day we often had the best two (Spinks/Braxton, SRL/Hearns, Chandler/Pintor, Sanchez/Pedroza) holding the two available titles, but the chances of four worthy holders is almost zero IMO.
There's been too much dancing around legitimate opposition for many years. Often the promoters take a champion as their own, refusing to allow contenders deemed worthy, to battle a champion. Other times, the champs are not worthy of fighting each other.... Val vs Vitali... The powers that be, money makers, control freaks, untrust worthy promoters and handlers have pretty much turned the sport into a circus... Its almost beyond repair... and the class fighters are those, who legitimise a single division, unifying the WBC, WBA and IBF should be respected for this. For a fighter to be a world champ after claiming a version of any title in a single weight class, the step up and win further titles in another 2 or 3 weight classes is an honourable feat... yet, in the last 25 years.. there have been more dual/triple/ quadruple champions, than one could care to spend their own time counting.. In the first 80 years of the sport, only a very select group, all very credible champions, all to be respected eternally, moved up to a higher division to take the reigns, on 2 occassions, Armstrong and Fitzsimmons went down a division to obtain a title.. Both legends in the sport. Its a slur on the sport to mention a good deal of the modern fighters in the same breath as many from the old times... Granted, a lot of the moderns are clearly superior boxers, yet the roads followed are far less trecherous. Countless names of modern fighters deserve accolades for the brilliance, yet, at the same time... a vast many, accept rewards through the road less followed by the classic men of the games history. IMO, a true sign of a class fighter, is firstly dominate his division, secondly.. leave little room for arguement, thirly.. retain the appreciation of the fans, thus ensuring his name will be compared to all future fighters... more as a guide, than an arguement. SRR, his name is undoutlby one of those names which inspire adulation.. and constant comparisons to any brilliant M/W... Not very often is a suggestion worthy of arguement brought to the table, when discecting his career, or listing 20 names that would have dished him a complete hiding. Armstrong is a close second... those who argue his abilities are generally ill-informed.. and soon realise the mans worthiness. The top -10 p4p through-out the history of the game, will have very few to be compared too.. and Its unlikely any man of the last 25 years deserves a consolidated spot in that top 10.
\ Beautiful post.I always felt that there should be one champion in each division, if possible, and with the current situation of organizations and confusion, it stands out somewhat.
A huge amount. Beating the best fighter in the world is one thing. Seperating various versions of the title from their respective owners is another.
I do not care about the strength of the division, because if a fighter could totally unify all alphabet crap in this day an age, he is not just above Robinson, he is prove that god exists!!!!! As for previous era's (20's though to the 90's), even with sometimes weak champions unifying the title meant something no matter what, but beating a Tommy Hearns to unify the Welterweight division obviously meant more than flattening a Bruce Seldon to win the WBA piece of crap, after giving your WBC crap up, to avoid fighting a Lennox Lewis.....
Back then? Certainly a worthy feat. Nowadays though most of the time unification only lasts about a year tops. Too many sanctioning bodies and fees, too much weight juggling, too many mandatories etc etc.
Lewis unify the titles vs Holyfiled, (The rematch of couse) And what happens?? A few months later Holyfiled is fighting Ruiz for the WBA belt, and I was like what?? They cant start stripping this soon.