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

All of them won 3 Lineal Titles in different divisions, except James Toney.

 

Damn you and you fighters Apathetic!!

I can't tell which ones are which and who has what style without actually going through and looking at their fights each and every time!! I suppose you did it that way on purpose though.....

 

And Jones, who never held a Lineal title.

 

Yes.

Well, I think Jones was Light Heavyweight Champion, but that's debatable. I consider the 175 Lineal Title vacant since Michael Spinks retired until Roy Jones got it in the late 1990s. It's debatable because many think that Virgil Hill was Lineal Champion -I don't.

At Middleweight, Super Middleweight and Heavyweight, Jones was just a beltholder.

 

Well it really is complicated, and until last week, I felt the Lineal belt should be considered the most important. However, Decebal (and BigReg to a point) laid out a strong case for the belt being obsolete due to it being held hostage because of so many ABC orgs and their mandatories and other political issues (Erdei is doing it at LHW).

Jones case is odd, because even if you don't consider Hill-Maske as re-establishing lineage, even though they were the 2 best fighters in the division for a long period, the very next fight certainly would have to be given strong consideration, since DM vs Hill unified 3 titles and the other long reigning champion of the division.

 

Well yeah, but it would be what he's done APART from that that got him there.

 

Jeff fenech

held 3 should have been 4 but got ripped off against Nelson

 

IBF, WBC and WBA.....only Calzaghe gave the WBO some credibility

 

WTF is the WBU?

 

world boxing union.....another ABC joke. IMO the only champions are ring magazine champs you have to beat the best to get the title....on the other hand the wbc, wba, and ibf are the most credible trinkets

 

Of course.

Some fighters can't even win one. :yep