10 Most Accomplished of My Lifetime

[Violent Demise]

Pernell Whitaker- This guy was slick as hell in the ring...I wish he was prime today a bout against Mayweather would be a boxing fans dream in terms of tecnique...was a world champion in one form or another for almost a decade....one of the greatest boxers of all time who until his later years when he stopped training as hard as he partied he was unbeatable

Roberto Duran- Over 100 career wins, was champion in 4 weight classes, had some of the most memorable fights win or lose of the last 40 years, tough as nails and overtime we thought he was done at an elite level he came back to prove the world wrong...The announcement of his name gave fans goosebumps because they knew they were in for a war...Was one of the most intimidating fighters of all time as well

Floyd Mayweather JR- Love him or hate him you can not deny his skill set and the fact he has claimed world titles in 5 weight classes, one of the most defensively skilled fighters ever. Can be exciting if he chooses but no matter what he gives us some sort of clinic against elite opponents one of the era biggest draws recently long time pound for pound best one of the ATG's and most successful fighters period let alone of my time

Manny Pacquiao- Again Love him or hate him the man holds titles in 8 different weight classes, has fought and beaten some of our eras biggest legends...only legitimate loss in his career is against Morales (You cant count losses at 15,16 yrs old in bouts against grown men) Only truly tested against JMM...Made himself a legend by battering bigger men.....An international celebertiy that just adds attention to the sport...pound for pound kingpin like Floyd one of the most successful fighters ever not just of my generation

Of course you can't count those losses. Mainly cuz he wasn't even fighting at that age. His early losses were at 19 (to a 23 year old) and 21 years old (against a fellow 21 year old). I don't why people always trying to exaggerate shit. He's obviously improved as a fighter. But the losses count

I don't know why people try to pretend they are internet gangsters trying to convince people they are scary frightening individuals meanwhile they are grown men looking ore like Jamie Kennedy in Malibu's Most wanted but they do

Somebody got there feelings hurt. Not my fault you have a problem with making shit up. Stop lying and stick to the fucking facts. Shit ain't that fucking hard to understand.

[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.

[IamInuit]

I can't see how you can leave out Roy Jones jr and then there is Bob Foster who was Light Heavy king from 1968-1974 and only lost to Ali and Frazier in that time.

Leaving Jones out was easy

He doesn't have a legit claim as Champion in any division and he left waaaaay too many guys unfought. Now was he an extraordinary combination of speed and power? You betcha!

I should be SHOT for not mentioning the Sherriff. [Cue Bob Marley]

Now we have an issue. Pretzel logic friend.

I realize I'd be shot, not the Sherriff, but how bout a little slack?

Yup he could have fought Watson, Collins, Eubank, Benn. They could have also fought him in that 160/68 area. People seem to forget what a machine this man was at 160/168/ 175. Dariusz ducked Roy just as much as Roy ducked him. Jones was the man at 175 regardless of his collection of tin. He would have kicked the snot out of Dariusz.

Yeah and Tyson would have kicked the snot out of Douglas and Duran would have kicked the snot out of Laing and Chiquita would have buried Roland Pascua

You know and I know a fighter has either done it or he hasn't. Woulda coulda shoulda carries no weight.

Yeah and to repeat the reverse is also the case. Roy was the man especially at 175 and Dariusz had no intention of coming to this continent to fight him.

[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.

[marbleheadmaui]

I can't see how you can leave out Roy Jones jr and then there is Bob Foster who was Light Heavy king from 1968-1974 and only lost to Ali and Frazier in that time.

Leaving Jones out was easy

He doesn't have a legit claim as Champion in any division and he left waaaaay too many guys unfought. Now was he an extraordinary combination of speed and power? You betcha!

I should be SHOT for not mentioning the Sherriff. [Cue Bob Marley]

Now we have an issue. Pretzel logic friend.

I realize I'd be shot, not the Sherriff, but how bout a little slack?

Yup he could have fought Watson, Collins, Eubank, Benn. They could have also fought him in that 160/68 area. People seem to forget what a machine this man was at 160/168/ 175. Dariusz ducked Roy just as much as Roy ducked him. Jones was the man at 175 regardless of his collection of tin. He would have kicked the snot out of Dariusz.

Yeah and Tyson would have kicked the snot out of Douglas and Duran would have kicked the snot out of Laing and Chiquita would have buried Roland Pascua

You know and I know a fighter has either done it or he hasn't. Woulda coulda shoulda carries no weight.

Yeah and to repeat the reverse is also the case. Roy was the man especially at 175 and Dariusz had no intention of coming to this continent to fight him.

And you'll note I don't have Darius on my list either

[Violent Demise]

With such a talented fighter such as Jones it is mind boggling that he was never a lineal champ! Kind of reminds me of Donaire, an extremely gifted fighter that has yet been a lineal champ.

And most boxing fans and historians just go with the lineal title anyways. I mean when John Ruiz gets to claim he was a HW champ like Ali and Louis, then you know the alphabet titles don't mean shit.

If I'm not mistaken I do believe Donaire is the Bantamweight lineal champion at this moment

I think the last guy who clearly was that was probably the guy who beat Gaby Canizales who beat Sandoval who beat Jeff Chandler who beat Sol;is who beat Lujan who beat Zamora who beat I dunno. Paningo? From Columbia? Maybe Venezuela? I think (could be wrong) he retired.

I think one could argue pretty convincingly that Rafael Marquez did enough to begin a new line, but he never lost and moved up too. So THEN who are we left with? Hawsegawa? I guess the question is do you think he did enough to start a new line. He had big wins over Sahaprom, but Sahaprom had never faced Raffy and I think was the weaker beltholder in terms of competition faced. So I don't think Nonito gets there...YET.

But I think the winner of Nonito the Mares/Agbeko victor is going to have a pretty good claim.

Paningo was from Venezuela. He actually moved up to featherweight. He didn't retire. And yes he was the one who had last the lineal title. But again it depends how one continues the line. Some consider the title to still be vacant. Which is fair enough. Others continued the line when Veerapol Sahaprom stopped Joichiro Tatsuyoshi. Which in turn turned into Hasegawa, Montiel and know Donaire. I actually don't have a problem with that scenario either

[marbleheadmaui]

With such a talented fighter such as Jones it is mind boggling that he was never a lineal champ! Kind of reminds me of Donaire, an extremely gifted fighter that has yet been a lineal champ.

And most boxing fans and historians just go with the lineal title anyways. I mean when John Ruiz gets to claim he was a HW champ like Ali and Louis, then you know the alphabet titles don't mean shit.

If I'm not mistaken I do believe Donaire is the Bantamweight lineal champion at this moment

I think the last guy who clearly was that was probably the guy who beat Gaby Canizales who beat Sandoval who beat Jeff Chandler who beat Sol;is who beat Lujan who beat Zamora who beat I dunno. Paningo? From Columbia? Maybe Venezuela? I think (could be wrong) he retired.

I think one could argue pretty convincingly that Rafael Marquez did enough to begin a new line, but he never lost and moved up too. So THEN who are we left with? Hawsegawa? I guess the question is do you think he did enough to start a new line. He had big wins over Sahaprom, but Sahaprom had never faced Raffy and I think was the weaker beltholder in terms of competition faced. So I don't think Nonito gets there...YET.

But I think the winner of Nonito the Mares/Agbeko victor is going to have a pretty good claim.

Paningo was from Venezuela. He actually moved up to featherweight. He didn't retire. And yes he was the one who had last the lineal title. But again it depends how one continues the line. Some consider the title to still be vacant. Which is fair enough. Others continued the line when Veerapol Sahaprom stopped Joichiro Tatsuyoshi. Which in turn turned into Hasegawa, Montiel and know Donaire. I actually don't have a problem with that scenario either

Yeah, that seems reasonable too. That's the hardest part about the lineal thingy. When a guy moves up or retires, when does a guy do enough to start a new line.

[DaxxKahn]

Pernell Whitaker- This guy was slick as hell in the ring...I wish he was prime today a bout against Mayweather would be a boxing fans dream in terms of tecnique...was a world champion in one form or another for almost a decade....one of the greatest boxers of all time who until his later years when he stopped training as hard as he partied he was unbeatable

Roberto Duran- Over 100 career wins, was champion in 4 weight classes, had some of the most memorable fights win or lose of the last 40 years, tough as nails and overtime we thought he was done at an elite level he came back to prove the world wrong...The announcement of his name gave fans goosebumps because they knew they were in for a war...Was one of the most intimidating fighters of all time as well

Floyd Mayweather JR- Love him or hate him you can not deny his skill set and the fact he has claimed world titles in 5 weight classes, one of the most defensively skilled fighters ever. Can be exciting if he chooses but no matter what he gives us some sort of clinic against elite opponents one of the era biggest draws recently long time pound for pound best one of the ATG's and most successful fighters period let alone of my time

Manny Pacquiao- Again Love him or hate him the man holds titles in 8 different weight classes, has fought and beaten some of our eras biggest legends...only legitimate loss in his career is against Morales (You cant count losses at 15,16 yrs old in bouts against grown men) Only truly tested against JMM...Made himself a legend by battering bigger men.....An international celebertiy that just adds attention to the sport...pound for pound kingpin like Floyd one of the most successful fighters ever not just of my generation

Of course you can't count those losses. Mainly cuz he wasn't even fighting at that age. His early losses were at 19 (to a 23 year old) and 21 years old (against a fellow 21 year old). I don't why people always trying to exaggerate shit. He's obviously improved as a fighter. But the losses count

I don't know why people try to pretend they are internet gangsters trying to convince people they are scary frightening individuals meanwhile they are grown men looking ore like Jamie Kennedy in Malibu's Most wanted but they do

Somebody got there feelings hurt. Not my fault you have a problem with making shit up. Stop lying and stick to the fucking facts. Shit ain't that fucking hard to understand.

dupe post

[DaxxKahn]

Pernell Whitaker- This guy was slick as hell in the ring...I wish he was prime today a bout against Mayweather would be a boxing fans dream in terms of tecnique...was a world champion in one form or another for almost a decade....one of the greatest boxers of all time who until his later years when he stopped training as hard as he partied he was unbeatable

Roberto Duran- Over 100 career wins, was champion in 4 weight classes, had some of the most memorable fights win or lose of the last 40 years, tough as nails and overtime we thought he was done at an elite level he came back to prove the world wrong...The announcement of his name gave fans goosebumps because they knew they were in for a war...Was one of the most intimidating fighters of all time as well

Floyd Mayweather JR- Love him or hate him you can not deny his skill set and the fact he has claimed world titles in 5 weight classes, one of the most defensively skilled fighters ever. Can be exciting if he chooses but no matter what he gives us some sort of clinic against elite opponents one of the era biggest draws recently long time pound for pound best one of the ATG's and most successful fighters period let alone of my time

Manny Pacquiao- Again Love him or hate him the man holds titles in 8 different weight classes, has fought and beaten some of our eras biggest legends...only legitimate loss in his career is against Morales (You cant count losses at 15,16 yrs old in bouts against grown men) Only truly tested against JMM...Made himself a legend by battering bigger men.....An international celebertiy that just adds attention to the sport...pound for pound kingpin like Floyd one of the most successful fighters ever not just of my generation

Of course you can't count those losses. Mainly cuz he wasn't even fighting at that age. His early losses were at 19 (to a 23 year old) and 21 years old (against a fellow 21 year old). I don't why people always trying to exaggerate shit. He's obviously improved as a fighter. But the losses count

I don't know why people try to pretend they are internet gangsters trying to convince people they are scary frightening individuals meanwhile they are grown men looking ore like Jamie Kennedy in Malibu's Most wanted but they do

Somebody got there feelings hurt. Not my fault you have a problem with making shit up. Stop lying and stick to the fucking facts. Shit ain't that fucking hard to understand.

Your cool to be cursing over the internet....SCARY you are........sorry I did not run to boxrec to find out Mannys exact age...In truth one loss was at 18 not 19 so stick to the FUCKING FACTS it is not that hard....

Your problem is your parents never taught you any respect as a kid before dumping you off back in the basement of the crack house they conceived you in...You fucking reoccurring guest on To Catch a Predator

[Violent Demise]

Pernell Whitaker- This guy was slick as hell in the ring...I wish he was prime today a bout against Mayweather would be a boxing fans dream in terms of tecnique...was a world champion in one form or another for almost a decade....one of the greatest boxers of all time who until his later years when he stopped training as hard as he partied he was unbeatable

Roberto Duran- Over 100 career wins, was champion in 4 weight classes, had some of the most memorable fights win or lose of the last 40 years, tough as nails and overtime we thought he was done at an elite level he came back to prove the world wrong...The announcement of his name gave fans goosebumps because they knew they were in for a war...Was one of the most intimidating fighters of all time as well

Floyd Mayweather JR- Love him or hate him you can not deny his skill set and the fact he has claimed world titles in 5 weight classes, one of the most defensively skilled fighters ever. Can be exciting if he chooses but no matter what he gives us some sort of clinic against elite opponents one of the era biggest draws recently long time pound for pound best one of the ATG's and most successful fighters period let alone of my time

Manny Pacquiao- Again Love him or hate him the man holds titles in 8 different weight classes, has fought and beaten some of our eras biggest legends...only legitimate loss in his career is against Morales (You cant count losses at 15,16 yrs old in bouts against grown men) Only truly tested against JMM...Made himself a legend by battering bigger men.....An international celebertiy that just adds attention to the sport...pound for pound kingpin like Floyd one of the most successful fighters ever not just of my generation

Of course you can't count those losses. Mainly cuz he wasn't even fighting at that age. His early losses were at 19 (to a 23 year old) and 21 years old (against a fellow 21 year old). I don't why people always trying to exaggerate shit. He's obviously improved as a fighter. But the losses count

I don't know why people try to pretend they are internet gangsters trying to convince people they are scary frightening individuals meanwhile they are grown men looking ore like Jamie Kennedy in Malibu's Most wanted but they do

Somebody got there feelings hurt. Not my fault you have a problem with making shit up. Stop lying and stick to the fucking facts. Shit ain't that fucking hard to understand.

Your cool to be cursing over the internet....SCARY you are........sorry I did not run to boxrec to find out Mannys exact age...In truth one loss was at 18 not 19 so stick to the FUCKING FACTS it is not that hard....

Your problem is your parents never taught you any respect as a kid before dumping you off back in the basement of the crack house they conceived you in...You fucking reoccurring guest on To Catch a Predator

Same old thing with you. You either straight lying or you exaggerate facts to the extreme (just cuz you were with grown men at 15 years old doesn't mean Pacquiao was fighting them). When you get called on it you get your feelings hurt. Like a fucking little girl. That's when you start embarrassing yourself with these weak insults that you either heard from the next door neighbor's son or from the 10 year old boy your currently molesting. Your pushing 70 years of age yet your 2 inches from your monitor waiting for a response. That's a hell of a existence you got going on. And you wonder why your spouse seeks the comfort of other men. Unbelievable.

Do everybody a....actually do yourself a favor and just stick to the facts. Shit ain't that hard. Save whatever dignity you think you still got left and stop speaking nonsense.

In order to keep the thread from getting fucked up even more, I give you the last word and won't bother responding to your dumb ass any more

With such a talented fighter such as Jones it is mind boggling that he was never a lineal champ! Kind of reminds me of Donaire, an extremely gifted fighter that has yet been a lineal champ.

And most boxing fans and historians just go with the lineal title anyways. I mean when John Ruiz gets to claim he was a HW champ like Ali and Louis, then you know the alphabet titles don't mean shit.

If I'm not mistaken I do believe Donaire is the Bantamweight lineal champion at this moment

I think the last guy who clearly was that was probably the guy who beat Gaby Canizales who beat Sandoval who beat Jeff Chandler who beat Sol;is who beat Lujan who beat Zamora who beat I dunno. Paningo? From Columbia? Maybe Venezuela? I think (could be wrong) he retired.

I think one could argue pretty convincingly that Rafael Marquez did enough to begin a new line, but he never lost and moved up too. So THEN who are we left with? Hawsegawa? I guess the question is do you think he did enough to start a new line. He had big wins over Sahaprom, but Sahaprom had never faced Raffy and I think was the weaker beltholder in terms of competition faced. So I don't think Nonito gets there...YET.

But I think the winner of Nonito the Mares/Agbeko victor is going to have a pretty good claim.

Paningo was from Venezuela. He actually moved up to featherweight. He didn't retire. And yes he was the one who had last the lineal title. But again it depends how one continues the line. Some consider the title to still be vacant. Which is fair enough. Others continued the line when Veerapol Sahaprom stopped Joichiro Tatsuyoshi. Which in turn turned into Hasegawa, Montiel and know Donaire. I actually don't have a problem with that scenario either

Yeah, that seems reasonable too. That's the hardest part about the lineal thingy. When a guy moves up or retires, when does a guy do enough to start a new line.

Things are pretty much at the point were lineal lines are getting debated.

[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

[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.

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

1. There is ZERO logic behind number one. Absolutely none. Correlation does NOT equal causation. And hey, if you're going to concede the Ring rankings are reasonable? Then they are also sufficient to identify contenders. The belts are at best superfluous. At worst? they cause huge problems. Why? Because, among other things they lead to alphabet rankings. last tiem I counted up the top ten 147's for the four largest gangs? We have 22 top ten ranked 147's. Yay us!
2. TV pays more for title fights because fans are being stupid. THAT is the key problem. If you want to tie some things together? How about the decline in boxing and the rise in the alphabet gangs? They coincide to a remarkable degree.
3. Again, you are simply clueless about boxing history. Pre the TV days fighters fought, period. You could see a live card in NYC 350 nights a year. It wasn't until TV arose in the 1950's and those clubs died that that dynamic changed. A pretty good metaphor for the rise and decline of the sport is Stillman's Gym. Read about it sometime. Or hell read a bio of Archie Moore or Harry Greb or Sam Langford etc. Of course the better way to look at things is which would you rather have? Some fighters having other jobs? or what we have today, a sport with HALF as many fighters as we had 50 years ago. In other words HALF of the guys we'd hope were fighters today too full time jobs doing something else and not fighting at all! Does that seem better to you?

[Fenster]

1. There is ZERO logic behind number one. Absolutely none. Correlation does NOT equal causation. And hey, if you're going to concede the Ring rankings are reasonable? Then they are also sufficient to identify contenders. The belts are at best superfluous. At worst? they cause huge problems. Why? Because, among other things they lead to alphabet rankings. last tiem I counted up the top ten 147's for the four largest gangs? We have 22 top ten ranked 147's. Yay us!
2. TV pays more for title fights because fans are being stupid. THAT is the key problem. If you want to tie some things together? How about the decline in boxing and the rise in the alphabet gangs? They coincide to a remarkable degree.
3. Again, you are simply clueless about boxing history. Pre the TV days fighters fought, period. You could see a live card in NYC 350 nights a year. It wasn't until TV arose in the 1950's and those clubs died that that dynamic changed. A pretty good metaphor for the rise and decline of the sport is Stillman's Gym. Read about it sometime. Or hell read a bio of Archie Moore or Harry Greb or Sam Langford etc. Of course the better way to look at things is which would you rather have? Some fighters having other jobs? or what we have today, a sport with HALF as many fighters as we had 50 years ago. In other words HALF of the guys we'd hope were fighters today too full time jobs doing something else and not fighting at all! Does that seem better to you?

1. When did I say you need belts to rank fighters? What independant ratings do you want to use other than the Ring's? It is a FACT that virtually every current alphabet holder is top 10 rated by the Ring. So tell me this - were the bogus "world" champions you listed rated top 10 before they won their belts? I don't think so. Therefore the belt is promoting them even in independant rankings. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that's just the way she goes.

2 & 3. I was talking from the benefit of a fighters perspective not a fans. I may well be clueless. But one thing I know, fighters from the past like fighters from the present all fight for one thing - money!!! That has never changed.

And I don't think boxing is in such a bad state. Seems to me boxing rolls along turning out great fight after great fight every week. Whether they be from America, Britain, South America, Europe, Japan etc, there are always boxing bills happening. I never lived in the "good old days" so sadly don't know what i'm missing

[marbleheadmaui]

1. There is ZERO logic behind number one. Absolutely none. Correlation does NOT equal causation. And hey, if you're going to concede the Ring rankings are reasonable? Then they are also sufficient to identify contenders. The belts are at best superfluous. At worst? they cause huge problems. Why? Because, among other things they lead to alphabet rankings. last tiem I counted up the top ten 147's for the four largest gangs? We have 22 top ten ranked 147's. Yay us!
2. TV pays more for title fights because fans are being stupid. THAT is the key problem. If you want to tie some things together? How about the decline in boxing and the rise in the alphabet gangs? They coincide to a remarkable degree.
3. Again, you are simply clueless about boxing history. Pre the TV days fighters fought, period. You could see a live card in NYC 350 nights a year. It wasn't until TV arose in the 1950's and those clubs died that that dynamic changed. A pretty good metaphor for the rise and decline of the sport is Stillman's Gym. Read about it sometime. Or hell read a bio of Archie Moore or Harry Greb or Sam Langford etc. Of course the better way to look at things is which would you rather have? Some fighters having other jobs? or what we have today, a sport with HALF as many fighters as we had 50 years ago. In other words HALF of the guys we'd hope were fighters today too full time jobs doing something else and not fighting at all! Does that seem better to you?

1. When did I say you need belts to rank fighters? What independant ratings do you want to use other than the Ring's? It is a FACT that virtually every current alphabet holder is top 10 rated by the Ring. So tell me this - were the bogus "world" champions you listed rated top 10 before they won their belts? I don't think so. Therefore the belt is promoting them even in independant rankings. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that's just the way she goes.

2 & 3. I was talking from the benefit of a fighters perspective not a fans. I may well be clueless. But one thing I know, fighters from the past like fighters from the present all fight for one thing - money!!! That has never changed.

And I don't think boxing is in such a bad state. Seems to me boxing rolls along turning out great fight after great fight every week. Whether they be from America, Britain, South America, Europe, Japan etc, there are always boxing bills happening. I never lived in the "good old days" so sadly don't know what i'm missing

And heaven forbid you do thew work to learn what you missed

Seriously there dramatically fewer cards worldwide than there were two decades ago. I did some rudimentary statistical work on that topic a year or so ago and the number of cards was down 30% or more in that time. The two exceptions were the former Eastern Europe (Poland, Germany) where it was illegal two decades ago and Argentina (where the sport does just roll along). Everywhere else was down and down dramtically.

On the money issue I understand that today belts mean more and that fighters are money driven. My point (which I haven't made clearly) is that that money isn't free. It comes at the expense of something, in this case the breadth of the sport. The way money has changed in the sport for the worse is in concentration. The guys at the top make huge somes. But the overall money available supports half as many fighters as it used to.

Why not hold terminology constant over time? Call strapholders what they would have been called in the days of one world champ per division. Contenders. It's an honorable title isn't it?

[generalbulldog]

That's very interesting that Donaire has a claim on the 118 lineal title. But really I do think the winner of Agbeko-Mares vs Donaire should really be for it.

It's also very interesting that Ring has Moreno as the no. 2 bw in the world. I don't know about that. Other rankings have Agbeko as the no. 2. The thing with establishing a new lineal champ is that it's sometimes hard to determine who is the no. 1 or 2 guy to fight it out to determine a new champ. But at 118 it's generally considered that Donaire is no. 1, but the no. 2 guy is hard to determine.