10 Most Accomplished of My Lifetime

[Violent Demise]

Let's look at Roy Jones as an example.
160-He beat BHOP for a vacant strap. At the time BHOP was the 8th ranked middle in the world. At the time the middles were a mess and stayed that way for another seven years. In NO sense was Jones CHAMPION here the way Hagler or Monzon was.
168-Again, an enormously muddled division. Jones claim rests on his defeat of James Toney. A GREAT win. But why was Toney a strapholder? he'd taken it from Tony Thornton, ranked #8 at 168. The lineal champion at that time was Michael Nunn who had taken the crown from Victor Cordoba who had taken it from Chris Tiozzo etc. Roy has no legit claim here either.
175-This one is easiest of all. Darius Michlashewski won, in the ring, every belt Roy held here. It was simply stripped because Darius wouldn't pay sanctioning fees...and Roy wouldn't fight him. Zero claim
Heavyweight-John Ruiz? Come on. Lennox Lewis was the lineal champ in a line going back all the way to Patterson.

A last point on Jones. He had monster TALENT, his skill set was seriously deficient. His footwork was awful, he had no jab, his balance was only ok, it's just that he was blessed with such amazing natural gifts he was able to win in spite of mediocre skills.

That's not entirely true. It depends on how you look at the lineal line after Michael Spinks vacated. Some consider Virgil Hill's defeat of Henry Maske as the beginning of the next line of succession, but a good amount trace the title through Roy Jones. The lineal championship at Light Heavyweight is very much a subject to dispute

Fair point. I'd argue that the best possible choice for creating a new line was Virgil Hill. Then he lost to Darius. Darius remained active until he lost to...I dunno? was it Tiozzo?

I guess one could make the argument that the crown remained vacant past Hill, but then how does Jones get THE claim over say Darius then?

It depends on how you look at it. The following is from someone who traces the title through Jones. I'm not supporting it personally. But it does make a lot of sense.

On 21st September 1985, Spinks made history by dethroning world heavyweight champion Larry Holmes and became the first lineal light heavyweight champion to topple a reigning lineal heavyweight title-holder.
Naturally, with heavyweight fame beckoning, he vacated his light heavyweight title and, predictably, there was mass confusion with the alphabet groups frantically filling vacancies like pigs at a trough.
Thereafter, there was no clear-cut lineage, and Boxing Illustrated magazine, which was naming one rightful world champion per division at the time, had their light heavyweight title vacant during this period.
Finally, in November 1996, something happened. WBA belt-holder Virgil Hill and IBF belt-holder Henry Maske fought each other in Germany on 23rd November and the winner was Hill. However, during the same month, Roy Jones beat Mike McCallum for the WBC belt. Jones had already beaten James Toney in 1994, who had been on an eye-catching winning streak; he had wins over Iran Barkley and Tim Littles amongst others (the needless super middleweight division is not recognized and therefore these were light heavyweight bouts). At this time, Jones was certainly the most talented fighter in the picture.
Some observers supported the Hill-Maske bout as being for the true world championship, but Jones could really not be discounted from the equation. In addition, a chain of succession existed; Hill had lost to Thomas Hearns on 3rd June 1991. Hearns was then beaten by Barkley, who was beaten by Toney, who was beaten by Jones.
On 13th June 1997, Hill lost to Dariusz Michalczewski, and Michalczewski embarked on a quest to face the most obscure opponents he could find. He fulfilled this quest by finding the likes of Darren Zenner and Muslim Biarslanov to pound on. Who were these guys? Maybe nobody knows. There was a strong argument that he essentially boxed his way out of contention by feasting on one soft touch after another. Why should he be rewarded for taking such an easy path?
Initially, the division needed a Jones-Hill bout to decide who would be the next rightful champ, but Jones lost to Montell Griffin on 21st March 1997. However, he beat Griffin in a rematch on 7th August the same year, and then there was hope for a Jones- Michalczewski match. But this wasn’t happening. While it could be argued that Michalczewski’s momentum disappeared as he continued to face no-hopers, Jones rose to greater heights after defeating Hill and Lou Del Valle.
Meanwhile, Reggie Johnson penetrated the scene with wins over William Guthrie, Ole Klemetsen and Willie Taylor, all decent opposition. Was this enough to overtake Michalczewski? At the very least he caught up with him and was on equal footing.
Johnson faced Jones on 5th June 1999, and this could be viewed as being for the vacant world championship. Any fight for the championship had to include Jones, who was an outstanding talent.

Ring Magazine is also another one who traces it through Jones

Well I must admit I like the starting point, simply denying the 168 division (my personal least favorite) exists in the first place!

But it really is an odd way to begin isn't it? I also got a kick out of the complaints about Darius (which are fair enough) and then justifies it because Jones fights...Lou Del Valle? Hadn't Lou lost to Virgil previously? Doesn't that render the rest of their argument regarding Hearns and Barkley etc kinda tough to support? Reggie Johnson was a good fighter, but HE's in the ring to determine the lineal champ? based on what?

Yeah Ring just got sick of Darius and said screw it and named Jones the guy after he beat Gonzales and Harmon.


I may just be outvoted here. The classy thing to do at this point would probably be to concede defeat.

Me? I'm gonna hold my breath and stomp my foot and see if that changes Ring Magazine and Boxing Illustrated's mind.

Got a question for you. Why Hill-Maske? Why pick up the lineal line with them? They certainly weren't the 2 best fighters in the division. So why? Is it because they each held a title? That can't be the case. You been pretty much dismissing titles (which I don't blame you) in every discussion. Going by that would be a contradiction. So I'm curious as to why start with Hill-Maske

[marbleheadmaui]

Let's look at Roy Jones as an example.
160-He beat BHOP for a vacant strap. At the time BHOP was the 8th ranked middle in the world. At the time the middles were a mess and stayed that way for another seven years. In NO sense was Jones CHAMPION here the way Hagler or Monzon was.
168-Again, an enormously muddled division. Jones claim rests on his defeat of James Toney. A GREAT win. But why was Toney a strapholder? he'd taken it from Tony Thornton, ranked #8 at 168. The lineal champion at that time was Michael Nunn who had taken the crown from Victor Cordoba who had taken it from Chris Tiozzo etc. Roy has no legit claim here either.
175-This one is easiest of all. Darius Michlashewski won, in the ring, every belt Roy held here. It was simply stripped because Darius wouldn't pay sanctioning fees...and Roy wouldn't fight him. Zero claim
Heavyweight-John Ruiz? Come on. Lennox Lewis was the lineal champ in a line going back all the way to Patterson.

A last point on Jones. He had monster TALENT, his skill set was seriously deficient. His footwork was awful, he had no jab, his balance was only ok, it's just that he was blessed with such amazing natural gifts he was able to win in spite of mediocre skills.

That's not entirely true. It depends on how you look at the lineal line after Michael Spinks vacated. Some consider Virgil Hill's defeat of Henry Maske as the beginning of the next line of succession, but a good amount trace the title through Roy Jones. The lineal championship at Light Heavyweight is very much a subject to dispute

Fair point. I'd argue that the best possible choice for creating a new line was Virgil Hill. Then he lost to Darius. Darius remained active until he lost to...I dunno? was it Tiozzo?

I guess one could make the argument that the crown remained vacant past Hill, but then how does Jones get THE claim over say Darius then?

It depends on how you look at it. The following is from someone who traces the title through Jones. I'm not supporting it personally. But it does make a lot of sense.

On 21st September 1985, Spinks made history by dethroning world heavyweight champion Larry Holmes and became the first lineal light heavyweight champion to topple a reigning lineal heavyweight title-holder.
Naturally, with heavyweight fame beckoning, he vacated his light heavyweight title and, predictably, there was mass confusion with the alphabet groups frantically filling vacancies like pigs at a trough.
Thereafter, there was no clear-cut lineage, and Boxing Illustrated magazine, which was naming one rightful world champion per division at the time, had their light heavyweight title vacant during this period.
Finally, in November 1996, something happened. WBA belt-holder Virgil Hill and IBF belt-holder Henry Maske fought each other in Germany on 23rd November and the winner was Hill. However, during the same month, Roy Jones beat Mike McCallum for the WBC belt. Jones had already beaten James Toney in 1994, who had been on an eye-catching winning streak; he had wins over Iran Barkley and Tim Littles amongst others (the needless super middleweight division is not recognized and therefore these were light heavyweight bouts). At this time, Jones was certainly the most talented fighter in the picture.
Some observers supported the Hill-Maske bout as being for the true world championship, but Jones could really not be discounted from the equation. In addition, a chain of succession existed; Hill had lost to Thomas Hearns on 3rd June 1991. Hearns was then beaten by Barkley, who was beaten by Toney, who was beaten by Jones.
On 13th June 1997, Hill lost to Dariusz Michalczewski, and Michalczewski embarked on a quest to face the most obscure opponents he could find. He fulfilled this quest by finding the likes of Darren Zenner and Muslim Biarslanov to pound on. Who were these guys? Maybe nobody knows. There was a strong argument that he essentially boxed his way out of contention by feasting on one soft touch after another. Why should he be rewarded for taking such an easy path?
Initially, the division needed a Jones-Hill bout to decide who would be the next rightful champ, but Jones lost to Montell Griffin on 21st March 1997. However, he beat Griffin in a rematch on 7th August the same year, and then there was hope for a Jones- Michalczewski match. But this wasn’t happening. While it could be argued that Michalczewski’s momentum disappeared as he continued to face no-hopers, Jones rose to greater heights after defeating Hill and Lou Del Valle.
Meanwhile, Reggie Johnson penetrated the scene with wins over William Guthrie, Ole Klemetsen and Willie Taylor, all decent opposition. Was this enough to overtake Michalczewski? At the very least he caught up with him and was on equal footing.
Johnson faced Jones on 5th June 1999, and this could be viewed as being for the vacant world championship. Any fight for the championship had to include Jones, who was an outstanding talent.

Ring Magazine is also another one who traces it through Jones

Well I must admit I like the starting point, simply denying the 168 division (my personal least favorite) exists in the first place!

But it really is an odd way to begin isn't it? I also got a kick out of the complaints about Darius (which are fair enough) and then justifies it because Jones fights...Lou Del Valle? Hadn't Lou lost to Virgil previously? Doesn't that render the rest of their argument regarding Hearns and Barkley etc kinda tough to support? Reggie Johnson was a good fighter, but HE's in the ring to determine the lineal champ? based on what?

Yeah Ring just got sick of Darius and said screw it and named Jones the guy after he beat Gonzales and Harmon.


I may just be outvoted here. The classy thing to do at this point would probably be to concede defeat.

Me? I'm gonna hold my breath and stomp my foot and see if that changes Ring Magazine and Boxing Illustrated's mind.

Got a question for you. Why Hill-Maske? Why pick up the lineal line with them? They certainly weren't the 2 best fighters in the division. So why? Is it because they each held a title? That can't be the case. You been pretty much dismissing titles (which I don't blame you) in every discussion. Going by that would be a contradiction. So I'm curious as to why start with Hill-Maske

Actually when they fought they were #'s 1 and 2 according to Ring Magazine IIRC. Maske had taken out Graciano, the Blade, Prince Charles and Virgil had beaten Tiozzo, Tate and Del Valle. The case isn't remotely ironclad, but it's a reasonable one in my view. It is also reasonable to say the title remained vacant until a later date. It becomes unclear to me then when a new line would begin that had a better case.

[Fenster]

Let's look at Roy Jones as an example.
160-He beat BHOP for a vacant strap. At the time BHOP was the 8th ranked middle in the world. At the time the middles were a mess and stayed that way for another seven years. In NO sense was Jones CHAMPION here the way Hagler or Monzon was.
168-Again, an enormously muddled division. Jones claim rests on his defeat of James Toney. A GREAT win. But why was Toney a strapholder? he'd taken it from Tony Thornton, ranked #8 at 168. The lineal champion at that time was Michael Nunn who had taken the crown from Victor Cordoba who had taken it from Chris Tiozzo etc. Roy has no legit claim here either.
175-This one is easiest of all. Darius Michlashewski won, in the ring, every belt Roy held here. It was simply stripped because Darius wouldn't pay sanctioning fees...and Roy wouldn't fight him. Zero claim
Heavyweight-John Ruiz? Come on. Lennox Lewis was the lineal champ in a line going back all the way to Patterson.

A last point on Jones. He had monster TALENT, his skill set was seriously deficient. His footwork was awful, he had no jab, his balance was only ok, it's just that he was blessed with such amazing natural gifts he was able to win in spite of mediocre skills.

That's not entirely true. It depends on how you look at the lineal line after Michael Spinks vacated. Some consider Virgil Hill's defeat of Henry Maske as the beginning of the next line of succession, but a good amount trace the title through Roy Jones. The lineal championship at Light Heavyweight is very much a subject to dispute

Fair point. I'd argue that the best possible choice for creating a new line was Virgil Hill. Then he lost to Darius. Darius remained active until he lost to...I dunno? was it Tiozzo?

I guess one could make the argument that the crown remained vacant past Hill, but then how does Jones get THE claim over say Darius then?

It depends on how you look at it. The following is from someone who traces the title through Jones. I'm not supporting it personally. But it does make a lot of sense.

On 21st September 1985, Spinks made history by dethroning world heavyweight champion Larry Holmes and became the first lineal light heavyweight champion to topple a reigning lineal heavyweight title-holder.
Naturally, with heavyweight fame beckoning, he vacated his light heavyweight title and, predictably, there was mass confusion with the alphabet groups frantically filling vacancies like pigs at a trough.
Thereafter, there was no clear-cut lineage, and Boxing Illustrated magazine, which was naming one rightful world champion per division at the time, had their light heavyweight title vacant during this period.
Finally, in November 1996, something happened. WBA belt-holder Virgil Hill and IBF belt-holder Henry Maske fought each other in Germany on 23rd November and the winner was Hill. However, during the same month, Roy Jones beat Mike McCallum for the WBC belt. Jones had already beaten James Toney in 1994, who had been on an eye-catching winning streak; he had wins over Iran Barkley and Tim Littles amongst others (the needless super middleweight division is not recognized and therefore these were light heavyweight bouts). At this time, Jones was certainly the most talented fighter in the picture.
Some observers supported the Hill-Maske bout as being for the true world championship, but Jones could really not be discounted from the equation. In addition, a chain of succession existed; Hill had lost to Thomas Hearns on 3rd June 1991. Hearns was then beaten by Barkley, who was beaten by Toney, who was beaten by Jones.
On 13th June 1997, Hill lost to Dariusz Michalczewski, and Michalczewski embarked on a quest to face the most obscure opponents he could find. He fulfilled this quest by finding the likes of Darren Zenner and Muslim Biarslanov to pound on. Who were these guys? Maybe nobody knows. There was a strong argument that he essentially boxed his way out of contention by feasting on one soft touch after another. Why should he be rewarded for taking such an easy path?
Initially, the division needed a Jones-Hill bout to decide who would be the next rightful champ, but Jones lost to Montell Griffin on 21st March 1997. However, he beat Griffin in a rematch on 7th August the same year, and then there was hope for a Jones- Michalczewski match. But this wasn’t happening. While it could be argued that Michalczewski’s momentum disappeared as he continued to face no-hopers, Jones rose to greater heights after defeating Hill and Lou Del Valle.
Meanwhile, Reggie Johnson penetrated the scene with wins over William Guthrie, Ole Klemetsen and Willie Taylor, all decent opposition. Was this enough to overtake Michalczewski? At the very least he caught up with him and was on equal footing.
Johnson faced Jones on 5th June 1999, and this could be viewed as being for the vacant world championship. Any fight for the championship had to include Jones, who was an outstanding talent.

Ring Magazine is also another one who traces it through Jones

Well I must admit I like the starting point, simply denying the 168 division (my personal least favorite) exists in the first place!

But it really is an odd way to begin isn't it? I also got a kick out of the complaints about Darius (which are fair enough) and then justifies it because Jones fights...Lou Del Valle? Hadn't Lou lost to Virgil previously? Doesn't that render the rest of their argument regarding Hearns and Barkley etc kinda tough to support? Reggie Johnson was a good fighter, but HE's in the ring to determine the lineal champ? based on what?

Yeah Ring just got sick of Darius and said screw it and named Jones the guy after he beat Gonzales and Harmon.


I may just be outvoted here. The classy thing to do at this point would probably be to concede defeat.

Me? I'm gonna hold my breath and stomp my foot and see if that changes Ring Magazine and Boxing Illustrated's mind.

Got a question for you. Why Hill-Maske? Why pick up the lineal line with them? They certainly weren't the 2 best fighters in the division. So why? Is it because they each held a title? That can't be the case. You been pretty much dismissing titles (which I don't blame you) in every discussion. Going by that would be a contradiction. So I'm curious as to why start with Hill-Maske

Actually when they fought they were #'s 1 and 2 according to Ring Magazine IIRC. Maske had taken out Graciano, the Blade, Prince Charles and Virgil had beaten Tiozzo, Tate and Del Valle. The case isn't remotely ironclad, but it's a reasonable one in my view. It is also reasonable to say the title remained vacant until a later date. It becomes unclear to me then when a new line would begin that had a better case.

However silly the alphabets are, they generally help in pointing out the best fighters in a particular divison, and certainly seem to play a role in helping to define a new linage.

Would this linage had been considered had there been no title unification on the line? Would it have been considered had Hill not already beaten the current WBC champion Tiozzo?

Seems to me the WBA, IBF and WBC titles strongly influenced the creation of a new MAN.

[marbleheadmaui]

However silly the alphabets are, they generally help in pointing out the best fighters in a particular divison, and certainly seem to play a role in helping to define a new linage.

Would this linage had been considered had there been no title unification on the line? Would it have been considered had Hill not already beaten the current WBC champion Tiozzo?

Seems to me the WBA, IBF and WBC titles strongly influenced the creation of a new MAN.

I think your initial assertion is simply wrong. Here is a partial list of current alphabet strapholders who aren't remotely among the best fighters in there division.

Guillermo Jones, Beibut Shumenov, Dimitri Sartison, Gennady Golovkin, Hassan, Njikam, Austin Trout,
Saul Alvarez, Cornelius Bundrage, Soulyman M'bye and I'm still at 147 and above.

When Manny beat MAB, there was no alphabet strap on the line. Just MAB's win over Hamed over vasquez over Rojas and all the way back to Eusabio Pedroza.

Let me try it this way. What do the alphabet belts do positively that the Ring rankings don't? I'd argue nothing. Yet they cost the sport in a big way by diluting what Champion means. I really believe this is one thing that has driven the casual fan away. When I was growing up in the horse and buggy days, even a casual fan could tell you who the middleweight and welterweight champions were. Even the fans who only cared about the biggest fights knew they were getting the goods when a fight was fairly labelled "for the undisputed lightweight championship of the world." Serious fight fans (like me) could name the champ division by division. Today? NOBODY could remember the 100 names of guys who have belts and casual fans have no way to know, outside of the true event fights, which ones are real championship fights and which are fiction.

[Fenster]

However silly the alphabets are, they generally help in pointing out the best fighters in a particular divison, and certainly seem to play a role in helping to define a new linage.

Would this linage had been considered had there been no title unification on the line? Would it have been considered had Hill not already beaten the current WBC champion Tiozzo?

Seems to me the WBA, IBF and WBC titles strongly influenced the creation of a new MAN.

I think your initial assertion is simply wrong. Here is a partial list of current alphabet strapholders who aren't remotely among the best fighters in there division.

Guillermo Jones, Beibut Shumenov, Dimitri Sartison, Gennady Golovkin, Hassan, Njikam, Austin Trout,
Saul Alvarez, Cornelius Bundrage, Soulyman M'bye and I'm still at 147 and above.

When Manny beat MAB, there was no alphabet strap on the line. Just MAB's win over Hamed over vasquez over Rojas and all the way back to Eusabio Pedroza.

Let me try it this way. What do the alphabet belts do positively that the Ring rankings don't? I'd argue nothing. Yet they cost the sport in a big way by diluting what Champion means. I really believe this is one thing that has driven the casual fan away. When I was growing up in the horse and buggy days, even a casual fan could tell you who the middleweight and welterweight champions were. Even the fans who only cared about the biggest fights knew they were getting the goods when a fight was fairly labelled "for the undisputed lightweight championship of the world." Serious fight fans (like me) could name the champ division by division. Today? NOBODY could remember the 100 names of guys who have belts and casual fans have no way to know, outside of the true event fights, which ones are real championship fights and which are fiction.

Hilarious. If only you knew how many times i've posted that. You are preaching to the wrong person. When it comes to establishing the rightful champion per division I give ZERO credit to alphabet titles.

However, your list of fighters PROVES my point. What do all the "full" belt holders have in common? They're all ranked in the top 10 by The Ring. CLEARLY the alphabet title is elevating them to this status. Therefore, alphabet titles increase - virtually gaurantee - the chance of not only a high ranking among the worlds best fighters per division, they also help to establish a "true" no.1 through unification contests, especially when the linage has been lost.

And by the way - alphabet titles greatly benefit the potential money a fighter can make. They are a nightmare for hardcore fans, they certainly are not for the actual boxers. Fact.

[marbleheadmaui]

However silly the alphabets are, they generally help in pointing out the best fighters in a particular divison, and certainly seem to play a role in helping to define a new linage.

Would this linage had been considered had there been no title unification on the line? Would it have been considered had Hill not already beaten the current WBC champion Tiozzo?

Seems to me the WBA, IBF and WBC titles strongly influenced the creation of a new MAN.

I think your initial assertion is simply wrong. Here is a partial list of current alphabet strapholders who aren't remotely among the best fighters in there division.

Guillermo Jones, Beibut Shumenov, Dimitri Sartison, Gennady Golovkin, Hassan, Njikam, Austin Trout,
Saul Alvarez, Cornelius Bundrage, Soulyman M'bye and I'm still at 147 and above.

When Manny beat MAB, there was no alphabet strap on the line. Just MAB's win over Hamed over vasquez over Rojas and all the way back to Eusabio Pedroza.

Let me try it this way. What do the alphabet belts do positively that the Ring rankings don't? I'd argue nothing. Yet they cost the sport in a big way by diluting what Champion means. I really believe this is one thing that has driven the casual fan away. When I was growing up in the horse and buggy days, even a casual fan could tell you who the middleweight and welterweight champions were. Even the fans who only cared about the biggest fights knew they were getting the goods when a fight was fairly labelled "for the undisputed lightweight championship of the world." Serious fight fans (like me) could name the champ division by division. Today? NOBODY could remember the 100 names of guys who have belts and casual fans have no way to know, outside of the true event fights, which ones are real championship fights and which are fiction.

Hilarious. If only you knew how many times i've posted that. You are preaching to the wrong person. When it comes to establishing the rightful champion per division I give ZERO credit to alphabet titles.

However, your list of fighters PROVES my point. What do all the "full" belt holders have in common? They're all ranked in the top 10 by The Ring. CLEARLY the alphabet title is elevating them to this status. Therefore, alphabet titles increase - virtually gaurantee - the chance of not only a high ranking among the worlds best fighters per division, they also help to establish a "true" no.1 through unification contests, especially when the linage has been lost.

And by the way - alphabet titles greatly benefit the potential money a fighter can make. They are a nightmare for hardcore fans, they certainly are not for the actual boxers. Fact.

I don't get it. You concede the rankings are already there, right? I mean all sorts of guys without straps are highly ranked. And we disagree on a fundamental point. I think fighters make LESS money and the sport less money because the straps have driven fans away. The fan base has shrunk. Why? Because it is impossible for a casual fan to know what fights matter except for the event fights.

[Fenster]

However silly the alphabets are, they generally help in pointing out the best fighters in a particular divison, and certainly seem to play a role in helping to define a new linage.

Would this linage had been considered had there been no title unification on the line? Would it have been considered had Hill not already beaten the current WBC champion Tiozzo?

Seems to me the WBA, IBF and WBC titles strongly influenced the creation of a new MAN.

I think your initial assertion is simply wrong. Here is a partial list of current alphabet strapholders who aren't remotely among the best fighters in there division.

Guillermo Jones, Beibut Shumenov, Dimitri Sartison, Gennady Golovkin, Hassan, Njikam, Austin Trout,
Saul Alvarez, Cornelius Bundrage, Soulyman M'bye and I'm still at 147 and above.

When Manny beat MAB, there was no alphabet strap on the line. Just MAB's win over Hamed over vasquez over Rojas and all the way back to Eusabio Pedroza.

Let me try it this way. What do the alphabet belts do positively that the Ring rankings don't? I'd argue nothing. Yet they cost the sport in a big way by diluting what Champion means. I really believe this is one thing that has driven the casual fan away. When I was growing up in the horse and buggy days, even a casual fan could tell you who the middleweight and welterweight champions were. Even the fans who only cared about the biggest fights knew they were getting the goods when a fight was fairly labelled "for the undisputed lightweight championship of the world." Serious fight fans (like me) could name the champ division by division. Today? NOBODY could remember the 100 names of guys who have belts and casual fans have no way to know, outside of the true event fights, which ones are real championship fights and which are fiction.

Hilarious. If only you knew how many times i've posted that. You are preaching to the wrong person. When it comes to establishing the rightful champion per division I give ZERO credit to alphabet titles.

However, your list of fighters PROVES my point. What do all the "full" belt holders have in common? They're all ranked in the top 10 by The Ring. CLEARLY the alphabet title is elevating them to this status. Therefore, alphabet titles increase - virtually gaurantee - the chance of not only a high ranking among the worlds best fighters per division, they also help to establish a "true" no.1 through unification contests, especially when the linage has been lost.

And by the way - alphabet titles greatly benefit the potential money a fighter can make. They are a nightmare for hardcore fans, they certainly are not for the actual boxers. Fact.

I don't get it. You concede the rankings are already there, right? I mean all sorts of guys without straps are highly ranked. And we disagree on a fundamental point. I think fighters make LESS money and the sport less money because the straps have driven fans away. The fan base has shrunk. Why? Because it is impossible for a casual fan to know what fights matter except for the event fights.

1. How many guys without straps currently occupy the no.1 or 2 position per division? Using The Ring ratings - almost every fighter currently rated in the top three is an alphabet holder. This indicates that a strap is highly influential in the rating a fighter is given and therefore greatly influences the chance of starting a NEW lineal champion.

2. Alphabet titles, plus regional ones, guarantee fighters the majority split on purse bids. The title is a bargaining chip. TV companies pay more for title fights. So being a champion is hugely beneficial. As far as fans are concerned, I agree, if we stripped boxing back to one title per division it would be fantastic. However, that wouldn't be great for the current "champions," or numerous challengers getting chances they never would have, to earn decent money through the sport.

Back in the "good old days," you had to con the public by throwing fights to get the opportunity to earn a few bob, right? Many a great fighter worked a full-time job as well as fought dozens of times per year. I bet some of those poor old fossils would give up their great resumes and hero status in a heartbeat to have the "riches" of a modern day alphabet holder