Was Virgil Hill/Michalczewski Linear Champ at 175? Look at this timeline

No he wasn't, he only had the interim belt, and only got that much on the same day Hill beat Maske. Tiozzo was still recognized as the champ and Jones would not get full recognition until sometime afterward, when Tiozzo vacated his claim.

Not for anything he'd done at LHW.

Not at LHW, so it's irrelevant.

No he didn't, his performance against a 40-year old Tizzo leftover was hardly considered stirring.

Yeah, he looked so much better getting clobbered by Hill in the rematch.

Yes he did, when he twice whupped a guy who whupped McCallum in between. Aside from the shitload of title defenses he had at the weight, compared to McCallum's one.

Who's to say he was is question that needs to be answered.

Both irrelevant when talking about their achievements at one particular weight.

No, Hill's wins over Stewart and Tiozzo were clearly bigger, if nothing else.

Not as a LHW.

Which is irrelevant as it happened afterward.

Not of any of the three major titles.

What "good" defenses were those?

But longer nonetheless.

Not if you know what the definition of ACCOMPLISHED is.

At LHW they had. And much moreso.

Not at LHW.

Yes, because it happened at LHW, which is the division in question here.

So was McCallum's.

What improvements did he make?

He had 20 LHW title defenses-worth of proof, vs. McCallum's one single successful defense and Jones' zero, against the same level of opposition.

Besides, that's irrelevant when discussing the matter of being the linear champ, which is dependent on rating and accomplishments rather than speculative quality.

 

On that logic Holyfield needed to pull out of his Bowe fight, because Lewis looked so good against Razor and now was clearly ahead of Bowe in the pecking order!

The reality was Hill/Maske was the match to decide who was Light Heavyweight World Champion and the line of that Championship incorporated Mr Michalczewski and if he had wanted/choose to, Roy Jones Jr.

 

From the point of Holyfield fighting the universal #1 contender, it is perfectly fair comment, and an excellent example of the flaw in your reasoning.

 

The fact is that Jones avoided DM for YEARS and blatantly avoided Rocky as well which was borne out by the lawsuit Rocky which rendered Jones title vacant and Rocky the champion. All the shinnanigans sorrounding Jones were a joke from his being politically favored due to his fat HBO contract to positive steroid test being swept under the rug. Talk about a modern guy who was built up with smoke and mirrors. All style and no substance.

 

What credentials did they have at that weight to make them better and more proven?

No, that's relevant facts, and the way division rankings have been drawn up since they were invented nearly 100 years ago.

Not until he proves it.

Unless they were at LHW, they were irrelevant here.

Who's to say he WOULD is the question that needs to be answered.

Rankings are based on accomplishments, not speculation.

So 4 years earlier he can't beat Hill, 4 years later he can't beat him either - what the hell's your basis for saying he was ever capable of beating Hill??

No, TIOZZO was not considered past his prime when he was KO'd by Hill.

The highlighted part is the only part that's relevant to what's being discussed here.

No it doesn't. Muhammad Ali was the more highly recognized champ at a time when he held the WBA belt and Norton/Holmes held the WBC. Conversely, Holmes and then Spinks were recognized as the lineal champs at a time when they held only the IBF belts and others held the WBC/WBA.

No it isn't, as the WBC/WBA have themselves only been around since the '60s-'70s.

No, more 100 years of boxing history.

The guy Jones beat didn't go up to LHW to do it, so it has no bearing on LHW rankings.

Not at this time period he wasn't, and never at LHW anyway.

You're right, I wouldn't have. Just like I didn't put money on Tarver or Glen Johnson to beat Roy. Oops.

Well, if your claim that Tiozzo had improved enough to beat Hill wasn't based on future events, then what was it based on?

The IBF is not "similarly lowly rated", it's held in significantly higher rating. Hence WBO champions were not acknowledged by The Ring and other magazines, but IBF ones were. Hence also fighters are not required to win the WBO belts in order to be recognized as the undisputed champs in their divisions - ie: Lennox Lewis, Hopkins - only the WBA, WBC, and IBF.

No, it's not rated "far higher". Hence Ali and his WBA belt were more highly recognized than Holmes with his WBC.

Again, I ask what were those?

Nice of you to gloss over the first part and go highlight the second part. Nevermind that THIS part here:

, which you ignored, completely undermines many of the points you're making in this thread.

No, relevant history and facts again.

Not when and where it mattered here.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS are not speculative, they are what has clearly and factually been done. That is the very definition of the word - even YOUR OWN definition that you posted reaffirms that. atsch

 

You can never have an undisputed champion in boxing, because he would never have a fight, as no one would dispute his claim....

So you have World Champions, and Hill/Maske filled a 10 year plus vacancy, not because the winner became undisputed champion, but because the generally considered two best fighters at the time of making the fight, fought each other, and we had a winner.

 

What on earth is your basis for saying Maske is, or ever has been, a lesser fighter than Tiozzo??