more credit is due to the person who beat the better opponents in my book. the straps the come along with it are just straps. i give some credence to being the lineal champion of course or the man in the division and some credence to the length of time being the best in the division and whether he cleaned out the division etc.
take wlad, in another thread started by you, "is the general opinion of wlad deserved," you argue that although wlad is an unified belt holder, he is overrated because he hasn't faced any good competition. haye would beat all of wlad's opposition and so on.
here, you argue that Haye is great because he held a lot of belts even though he didn't face any tough competition. it's a little hypocritical, isn't it? there's a difference though. when haye was at cruiserweight the division was crap, but haye wasn't in the division for very long. he didn't clean it out. wlad has literally cleaned out the entire division and faced the top in his division. haye left the division before he did that.
to be fair, with haye i feel like it's all about potential because his resume is thin. he has looked good dispatching weak opposition, but he doesn't really have a career defining victory. so if he beats wlad, that'll be i and he'll retire on top. he'll be p4p in my book. so far he hasn't beat anyone even remotely close to wlad. not even close.
Bookmarks