Winning Titles at 3 different divisions make fighters special...

Need more details.

Examples to compare contrast?

 

winning titles in 3 divisions is a spectacular accomplishment. I had a thread on here listing all the fighters that have done so.


p.s. New are you still bleeding from that ownage Sweet Pea dropped on you?

 

how was he owned?

 

It makes you special to win "titles" in 3 weight classes.

It makes you more special if you win Lineal titles in 3 weight classes: Fitzsimmons, Canzoneri, Ross, Armstrong, Griffith, Leonard, De la Hoya, Mayweather, Pacquiao, etc.

 

Oh yeah a super special fight.

 

iran barkley

 

duke mckenzie

 

yes it is, b/c i could easily say that he was a paper champ at 135, the dlh fight was for a vacant title, and the 154 title was a bogus decision and he was on roids.

 

Its more significant when you have won lineal titles in 3 weights, its easier to be a titlist in 3 weight classess when its 80 abc titles to win. I give credit to those that won there alphabet titles against the best at the weight at the time as well.

Barney Ross, Tony Canzoneri, Bob Fitzsimmons, Floyd Mayweather, Oscar De La Hoya, James Toney, Roy Jones, Julio Cesar Chavez are all great fighters. So I guess it has to be special

 

It varies case by case. There is no rule or absolute value on such feats.

Example: I don't think that people think Corrales winning belts in 2 different weight classes makes him a more accomplished fighter than Hagler for only winning a title in one weight class. I don't think that people think that DLH's 6 titles in 6 weight classes is more impressive than SRR's 2 titles in 2 weight classes.

 

Beating the best fighters at 3 weight classes is spectacular. Simply beating alphabet-holders is significantly less so.

I'm not going to christen somebody who beats Mzonke Fana, David Diaz and Andreas Kotelnik as one of the greatest fighter to ever have lived, am I?