Froch, Woods, Witter, in that order. Froch for his wins against Pascal, Dirrel and Taylor. Pushed Kessler hard. decent wins against a shot Robin Reid. Woods, an over achiever if ever there was one, came into the fightgame to lose his man boobs, ended up with a win over a one time unified/undisputed? champion of the division. Witter had the most talent, but like all Ingle fighters, never fulfilled it. Also apart from the Harris fight, never gave a top class performance in the limelight. Playing statue in the middle of the ring against chop chop Corley doesnt count.
Eh? Woods has always stated that he was a 'skinny kid' who was your average bloke who would get into daft skirmishes when of his tits. He didn't get into boxing 'to lose his man boobs', he just started to stay outta trouble. And Glenn Johnson was neither a unified or undisputed champion. He was the IBF champ, that's all. Great win regardless, which some moronic revisionists claim was a 'robbery'. His destruction of Battaglia was a great performance in a farily high profile fight. His win over Ndou on the Hopkins - Eastman undercard was also a good performance.
FYI http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/more_sport/article3689638.ece “When I first started boxing my only aim was to lose weight. I had a beer gut and ‘man This content is protected ’ hangin’ down to the floor. Maybe not officially, but Tarver had just defeated Jones jnr for the RING/WBC/WBA titles, and Johnson was the IBF titlist, and they were both stripped for fighting each other rather than their shitty mandatories, only a total ABC loving assclown would not consider Johnsons win over Tarver as for the Unified/undisputed LHW championship. Battaglia was a Eurobum, and the Ndou fight actually cost him his Goldenboy contract did it not, cos he refused to go for the kill after having him out on his feet, sounds like typical Witter, and deservedly is placed number 3 in the list.
Well that told me. The fact that Johnson never held the belts meant that he wasn't a unified champ. You can't be considered a unified champ if you don't hold more than one title - this isn't being 'a total ABC loving assclown'; it's just be being factually correct. For example: Tim Bradley isn't currently a unified champ because he vacated the WBC belt. But he actually held both at one point, so he was for a very small period a unified champ. As regards Johnson being 'undisputed', he clearly wasn't. Roy Jones held 373 lhw belts at the same time and he wasn't considered undisputed; I can't see any case being made to support the claim that Johnson was ever at any point the undisputed champ. Holding the Ring belt isn't in itself sufficient. Without wanting to sound like some sky chump trying to make a victory appear more impressive than it actually was, nobody smashed Battaglia like that. By all accounts he pushed Urkal jard for 12 rounds, and lost on a SD.
Well thats fair enough, Zsolt Erdie was WBO champ at the time,a guy who made both Calzaghe seem like an air mile collector, but for me personally, holding the WBA/WBC/IBF and Ring belts if suffice to make u the undisputed champ, which he would have done, had the right thing been done by the authorities. I mean wtf have briggs and Hoye ever done? They made the fight for the people, and the money of course lol, so in my eyes, as well as the majority of boxing fans, he should be seen, if not as the undisputed champ, then atleast the unified champion.