I preface my question by saying I know that these guys are world champions from an official point of view. I'm curious as to how you think of men who fight for and win a vacant world title and then lose that tile without ever successfully defending it. I have such a hard time putting them alongside men who beat champions to win their title or won a vacant title but then had at least one successful title defense. Welshman Barry Jones would be an example. He won a vacant title fight against Wilson Palacio, and then lost a one sided eight round defense against Popo Freitas. Jones doesn't seem like a world champion to me. What say you?
Vacant Title Fight Winners are (globally) worse boxers than boxers who became champions by beating champions. Of course IMHO.
I can follow your reasoning and you are not wrong. Then again, to even get into that position to fight for a vacant title, those guys are still the 0.01% of people that ever picked up Boxing and got that far. I get it as a fan we might say things like Charles Martin ain’t ****. But in a very real sense he is a very good fighter ofcourse. I would be happy to have the professional fight record of Charles Martin and be able to say I held that IBF belt.
Well said. I hold nothing but respect for the fighters themselves. They put their health on the line for our enjoyment
Seems like an entirely different conversation. I don't think Rolly Romero is a true champion. What does it matter if he's better than me or not?
