Good fighters win titles @ least @ 3 different divisions

[Expert]

like Mayweather, de la Hoya and Pacquiao, rite?

[Jose FM]

Jones, Toney, Trinidad,

[Jose FM]

Mosley, Leonard, Hearns...

[codeman99998]

Marvin hagler wasn't a good fighter? Bernard Hopkins isn't a good fighter?

[Ramshall1]

Not necesarily. . . Hagler, I rest my case.

[bladerunner]

Marvin hagler wasn't a good fighter? Bernard Hopkins isn't a good fighter?
or Willie Pep.

[codeman99998]

or Willie Pep.
Yeah... I mean, there are lots.

Basically 95% of the great heavyweight fighters.

[Smazz20]

Too many titles available now for that to really mean anything.

Same could be said for weightclasses

[BigEars]

like Mayweather, de la Hoya and Pacquiao, rite?

What about Hamed :lol:.................

[Expert]

Marvin hagler wasn't a good fighter? Bernard Hopkins isn't a good fighter?

they are, but obviously not a good as Leonard, Hearns, Mosley, Jones, Toney, Trinidad, Pacquiao, etc

[Rollo]

Muhammad Ali must´ve been lousy then!

[codeman99998]

they are, but obviously not a good as Leonard, Hearns, Mosley, Jones, Toney, Trinidad, Pacquiao, etc
I THINK you are being sarcastic, and that's great. If you aren't though:

Bernard Hopkins is not as good as Felix Trinidad?
Marvin Hagler is not as good as Thomas Hearns?

I rest my case.

[McGrain]

Burley, Wills, Lloyd Marshall, Sam McVey, Jack Chase...these are examples of fighters who didn't win any title at any level. I would argue that Burley is top ten p4p, post world war, possibly ever. These other guys would probably all be belt-holders today. Lloyd Marshall may be one of the best Middleweights of all time. Wills is almost certainly a top 20 heavyweight.


As far as today goes, you have Bernard Hopkins. Two weight champ. Do you think he's great?

[Expert]

or Willie Pep.

he was, but obviously not a good as Leonard, Hearns, Mosley, Jones, Toney, Trinidad, Pacquiao, etc

[Expert]

Same could be said for weightclasses


how can you say that?

how?

[codeman99998]

he was, but obviously not a good as Leonard, Hearns, Mosley, Jones, Toney, Trinidad, Pacquiao, etc
Willie Pep is CLEARLY better than 5 of those guys, and arguably better than the other 2.

(PS: Five points to the guy who picks out which 5 he is clearly better than and which 2 are arguable)

[McGrain]

he was, but obviously not a good as Leonard, Hearns, Mosley, Jones, Toney, Trinidad, Pacquiao, etc

I would say he is a full class above Mosley, Trinidad and Pacquaiao - those men would be embaressed to hear you say this. Leonard, Hearns, Jones and Toney are arguably in the same leauge but are all a peg or two below.

[codeman99998]

EXPERT
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Don't ignore it.

[bill poster]

If a boxer decides to be the top dog of his division (Hagler)and stay there then thats ok by me. Leonard and De la Hoya are a disgrace with their demands and antics. SRL making Hagler come into the ring at 160, 15-20 lbs below what he would usually weigh on the night- the 2 division stuff with Lalonde etc plus I always thought he looked a little too 'pumped up' post Hagler ....:huh

[thunder06]

what about hagler?

[Expert]

I THINK you are being sarcastic, and that's great. If you aren't though:

Bernard Hopkins is not as good as Felix Trinidad?
Marvin Hagler is not as good as Thomas Hearns?

I rest my case.


yes, Hopkins is not as good as Trinidad, and yes, Hagler was not as good as Hearns. I know they fought and Hagler won, but he was not as good as Hearns.

[McGrain]

yes, Hopkins is not as good as Trinidad, and yes, Hagler was not as good as Hearns. I know they fought and Hagler won, but he was not as good as Hearns.


But is Hopkins a "good fighter"? What about Burley and the other guys I mentioned? None of them even won a world title at all. Do you not see them as good fighters?

[codeman99998]

Hopkins is clearly better than Trinidad and Hagler is clearly better than Hearns.

I can find Youtube links that prove it if you'd like. If beating another fighter in his prime doesn't make you better, what does?

[brooklyn1550]

No, look at Sam Langford or Harry Wills - never even fought for a title, but are great.

[Smazz20]

how can you say that?

how?

would you regard Calderon in the same regard as Hopkins, if he was to win titles at 105-108 and 112?

Hardly as impressive as a 41 year old moving up from 160 to 175 to beat the MH champ is it?

My point by the way is their are too many weightclasses. Just as their are too many abc titles

[McGrain]

My point by the way is their are too many weightclasses.


Don't agree with that bro. The type of weight classes that would go would be the "in between" weights - and as we've seen, Hatton could be a genuine ATG at Ligh-Welter, but is not going to cut the mustard v top fighters at the weight above. Why deny ourselves fighters doing the business at these weights?

[Expert]

Don't agree with that bro. The type of weight classes that would go would be the "in between" weights - and as we've seen, Hatton could be a genuine ATG at Ligh-Welter, but is not going to cut the mustard v top fighters at the weight above. Why deny ourselves fighters doing the business at these weights?


Exactly, this is why Hatton aint as good as Mayweather.

[Expert]

[quote=Smazz20]would you regard Calderon in the same regard as Hopkins, if he was to win titles at 105-108 and 112?

yes, proportionally speaking is the same thing.

[Lance_Uppercut]

like Mayweather, de la Hoya and Pacquiao, rite?

Yes. All the heavyweights, and Hagler, Monzon, Ricardo Lopez, and Hopkins are all not good fighters. :patsch

[Smazz20]

Don't agree with that bro. The type of weight classes that would go would be the "in between" weights - and as we've seen, Hatton could be a genuine ATG at Ligh-Welter, but is not going to cut the mustard v top fighters at the weight above. Why deny ourselves fighters doing the business at these weights?


I agree. I would even keep Cruiser to be honest. The weights that I would get rid of are at the lower end of the spectrum.

I'd just cut three weights. 105-108 and 115. I could even understand if someone wanted to cut 122, but i'd keep it.

[Expert]

Yes. All the heavyweights, and Hagler, Monzon, Ricardo Lopez, and Hopkins are all not good fighters. :patsch

of course they are good, but not as good as Mayweather, de la Hoya, Hearns, Barrera, Leonard, Pacquiao, Mosley, etc

see the difference?

[Lance_Uppercut]

of course they are good, but not as good as Mayweather, de la Hoya, Hearns, Barrera, Leonard, Pacquiao, Mosley, etc

see the difference?
How about you explain the difference. WHY are they so much better, and please, don't just mention THREE TITLES. WHat made them better. Who did they beat to achieve greatness? Can you do that?

Or don't. I don't think you are serious anyway. YOU start the DUMBEST threads OBVIOUSLY to get some sort of reaction from fans.

[Expert]

I agree. I would even keep Cruiser to be honest. The weights that I would get rid of are at the lower end of the spectrum.

I'd just cut three weights. 105-108 and 115. I could even understand if someone wanted to cut 122, but i'd keep it.

most times you see better boxing at the lower divisions than at heavyweight

[codeman99998]

of course they are good, but not as good as Mayweather, de la Hoya, Hearns, Barrera, Leonard, Pacquiao, Mosley, etc

see the difference?
I don't have the time or initiative to show why Hagler and Hopkins are demonstrably better than some of those fighters. Most smart boxing fans already know I'm right so I don't care what you think.

Yes, those fighters are great and yes, having belts in multiple weight classes contributes to their greatness. But having straps in more than one weight class isn't WHY they are great, it is a consequence of their greatness.

Most of those fighters would be just as great if they had fought at only one weight.

[Expert]

Most of those fighters would be just as great if they had fought at only one weight.



this just cant be!

[codeman99998]

this just cant be!

It's not true for all of them, but for some of them they could even be GREATER if they hadn't moved up.

Hearns and Trinidad are prime examples. Imagine how spectacular the later parts of their careers could have been at 147.

[Smazz20]

most times you see better boxing at the lower divisions than at heavyweight

Quite a few people are very big on Ivan Calderon at the moment. I've even heard before, that he's a better boxer than Mayweather.

But he's 105 pounds. So no one cares

[Expert]

How about you explain the difference. WHY are they so much better, and please, don't just mention THREE TITLES. WHat made them better. Who did they beat to achieve greatness? Can you do that?

Or don't. I don't think you are serious anyway. YOU start the DUMBEST threads OBVIOUSLY to get some sort of reaction from fans.


Saw Hatton fight Collazo at 147? You see Hatton after that fighting at 154?

See things better now?

[Lance_Uppercut]

Saw Hatton fight Collazo at 147? You see Hatton after that fighting at 154?

See things better now?

How can anyone be as stupid as you..

[Expert]

How can anyone be as stupid as you..


A "good" fighter could very well be Duke McKenzie.

[thesandman]

Personally I think it's better for a guy to stay at one weight, clear it out, defend his UNDISPUTED titles a few times, and prove he really is the man at a weight, than to hippety hop around weight classes, and hand pick the worst ABC beltholder to win a title at that weight.

AFTER that if he moves around, cool. But to do it before can be meaningless.

When guys like Hearns did it, there were only 2 belts going around. Now there are 4. Makes it a bit easier, no?

Especially with the bullshit politics involved.

Look at Floyds WBC belts at 140 for example. (I'm not hassling Floyd, just using him as an example as a recent belt holder)

WBC. Stripped from Kostya Tszyu. (he kept the IBF only). Virtually gift wrapped on a plate for Gatti - who then lost it to Floyd.

What does that prove? It proves you can beat a guy, who beat a scrub for a belt that was stripped from the real champ.

[Lance_Uppercut]

A "good" fighter could very well be Duke McKenzie.

SO all single titlist fall into his category?

I asked you to explain. Seeing as you can't, I've deduced you're just a troll...

[McGrain]

This thread has gone unintentionally really funny. I love when that happens.

[Expert]

SO all single titlist fall into his category?

I asked you to explain. Seeing as you can't, I've deduced you're just a troll...

what I meant was that he won titles at 3 divisions.

[Expert]

Hearns and Trinidad are prime examples. Imagine how spectacular the later parts of their careers could have been at 147.


Sure, but fighting against who?

[bill poster]

It's not true for all of them, but for some of them they could even be GREATER if they hadn't moved up.

Hearns and Trinidad are prime examples. Imagine how spectacular the later parts of their careers could have been at 147.

Totally agree!!! tho i think Hearns should have stayed at middle, he never looked sharp at the above weights; his best defence was always his quick offence...OK, Hearns did redeem himself by winning the 4th belt against Rolden(was it?) and then I wish he had retired after Virgil Hill.

My all time favorite boxer tho Hagler had it all..

[Expert]

Trinidad is a POS compared to Hopkins. Hopkins was the first man to completely rape trinidad in the ring.

yes, because Trinidad was the one moving up in weight classes!

Hopkins is the best ever cos he ko'ed out Trinidad and De La Hoya, rite?

[jyuza]

I don't know why the thread has gone mad but if we are talking about good fighters who won titles in at least 3 divisions then Barrera and Morales have to be there. Althought they are not just good fighters, they are great legends.

[Expert]

Totally agree!!! tho i think Hearns should have stayed at middle, he never looked sharp at the above weights; his best defence was always his quick offence...OK, Hearns did redeem himself by winning the 4th belt against Rolden(was it?) and then I wish he had retired after Virgil Hill.

My all time favorite boxer tho Hagler had it all..


and why Hearns never looked sharp above Middleweight?

[Expert]

I don't know why the thread has gone mad but if we are talking about good fighters who won titles in at least 3 divisions then Barrera and Morales have to be there. Althought they are not just good fighters, they are great legends.


I agree 100%.

[BoppaZoo]

i dont agree with this post i mean such fighters like these didnt win at 3 different weights

Marvin Hagler
Aaron Pryor
Kostya Tszyu
Carlos Monzon
Micael Spinks
Joe Calzaghe

and i bet there are heaps more.

[codeman99998]

Winning belts in three different weight classes can be a SIGN of greatness, but it is not a requirement at all.

[Expert]

Winning belts in three different weight classes can be a SIGN of greatness, but it is not a requirement at all.


Honestly, Im not sure about that.

[thesandman]

Winning belts in three different weight classes can be a SIGN of greatness, but it is not a requirement at all.

Best way to sum it up yet.

[BoppaZoo]

Honestly, Im not sure about that.what so your saying Monzon's reign at 160 isnt good enough to call the man Great.

or Hagler's reign at 160 or Tszyu's at 140 or Spinks's reign at 175.

Thats BS just because you dont win belts at 3 divisions doesnt mean you cant be great.
what it means is you work harder and dont put on weight like other guys do. it takes a true champ to have a reign at 1 division for more than 6 years.
MOnzon would be classed as the greatest 160 fighter of all time. yet because he doesnt own a belt at 168 or 175 means his worthless to you.

well not this fan.

[WhataRock]

Arturo Gatti nearly became a 3 division titlist.
And if a fighter like Gatti could nearly become a 3 division champ then I think you can see the significance of it right there.

Gatti beat a pretty good fighter in Patterson to get a belt at 130, but its safe to say he didnt beat the best fighter at 130.

After winning some and loosing some and getting extremely popular whilst doing it, Gatti was basically handed a belt @ 140 because people like watching him.

After the Mayweather beating it was clear how far away Gatti was from the elite. He was then handed another shot because of his position with the networks and was spanked by an average but bigger fighter.

[Expert]

What's disagreeable about that post?

That post was good enough to be a thread closer.:deal


winning titles at 3 different divisions is just a "sign" of greatness?

[the_what]

We should only count the real weight classes. None of the super- or junior- titles should be included.

[codeman99998]

winning titles at 3 different divisions is just a "sign" of greatness?

It's possible (and I cant think of an exception at the top of my head because it's 3am, and I'm not going to bother doing any research about this) that every single fighter who has titles in 3 divisions is great. I'll concede that HYPOTHETICALLY. But that doesn't mean that you can't be great without having titles in 3 divisions and it doesn't mean that having title's in 3 divisions makes you greater than a fighter who doesn't.

Didn't SRR only have belts at WW and MW for god's sakes. Surely Trinidad isn't greater than Robinson.

[Expert]

Arturo Gatti nearly became a 3 division titlist.
And if a fighter like Gatti could nearly become a 3 division champ then I think you can see the significance of it right there.

Gatti beat a pretty good fighter in Patterson to get a belt at 130, but its safe to say he didnt beat the best fighter at 130.

After winning some and loosing some and getting extremely popular whilst doing it, Gatti was basically handed a belt @ 140 because people like watching him.

After the Mayweather beating it was clear how far away Gatti was from the elite. He was then handed another shot because of his position with the networks and was spanked by an average but bigger fighter.



So Pacquiao fighting Mayweather at 140 is nothing (just like Mayweather fighting De La Hoya at 154), rite?

[codeman99998]

So Pacquiao fighting Mayweather at 140 is nothing (just like Mayweather fighting De La Hoya at 154), rite?
Dude, I don't think ANYONE is saying its nothing, and Pacquiao fighting Mayweather at 140 is different than say, fighting Malignaggi (another titlist) at 140. The point is, the opponents matter a lot. In the modern era its relatively easy to pick out the weakest titlist in the division and take the belt.

To elaborate, how much credit does De La Hoya deserve for beating Sturm? (even if it WASNT such a controversial decision, he clearly lost badly to Bhop, the REAL middleweight champion.) How much credit does Hatton deserve for beating Collazo? How much does Malignaggi for beating Ndou? Not all titles are the same, and, winning in more than one weight class doesn't ALWAYS signify the greatness that, say, defending your title a record 20 times in a row does, or beating all of the best fighters in your weight class does.

Saying that it doesnt necessarily make you greater than other fighters who havent wpm titles in multiple divisions is not the same as saying it is nothing.

[Expert]

It's possible (and I cant think of an exception at the top of my head because it's 3am, and I'm not going to bother doing any research about this) that every single fighter who has titles in 3 divisions is great. I'll concede that HYPOTHETICALLY. But that doesn't mean that you can't be great without having titles in 3 divisions and it doesn't mean that having title's in 3 divisions makes you greater than a fighter who doesn't.

Didn't SRR only have belts at WW and MW for god's sakes. Surely Trinidad isn't greater than Robinson.


sure they are great, but not as great as the ones that have won titles at least at 3 different divisions.

[Expert]

Dude, I don't think ANYONE is saying its nothing,




but it makes a difference, rite?

[codeman99998]

but it makes a difference, rite?

It helps their cause.

But honestly, if you think Trinidad is greater than Robinson than we are done discussing this. That is so obviously incorrect that you are no longer bothering to base your arguments in reality.

[Expert]

It helps their cause.

But honestly, if you think Trinidad is greater than Robinson than we are done discussing this. That is so obviously incorrect that you are no longer bothering to base your arguments in reality.


well, Trinidad won titles at 3 different divisions, and couldnt beat Hopkins because it was too much 4 him, but they almost went the distance (of course Hopkins a much better fighter than Joppy)

[codeman99998]

well, Trinidad won titles at 3 different divisions, and couldnt beat Hopkins because it was too much 4 him, but they almost went the distance (of course Hopkins a much better fighter than Joppy)

SUGAR RAY ROBINSON... please, explain how any of the fighters you mentioned were better than the best fighter of all time.

[thesandman]

SUGAR RAY ROBINSON... please, explain how any of the fighters you mentioned were better than the best fighter of all time.

He's fucking with you man, don't bite.

Here's the answer I would write if I took up his alias...


SUGAR RAY ROBINSON... please, explain how any of the fighters you mentioned were better than the best fighter of all time.
A: Because they won titles in 3 divisions. Something Ray couldn't manage.

Just agree, and say, sure, anyone that becomes the undisputed champ in 3 different weight classes is great. So long as they're undisputed.

[Expert]

SUGAR RAY ROBINSON... please, explain how any of the fighters you mentioned were better than the best fighter of all time.


As for Trinidad fighting Hopkins, didnt you see the size difference when they fought? imo Trinidad went too far and for that reason got knocked out (btw, fairly)

I tought Ali was the best fighter of all time, but why Sugar Ray Robinson should be then?

[djrock247]

First of all...how can anyone argue the opinion of a person named "Expert". It's a futile proposition.

Secondly, here's a little rule of thumb. Chances are, if you know a fighter's name-he's not "good", he's "great". (exception made for Eric Crumble) There's no such thing as a mediocre sword swallower. If you're making money in that line of work, you're probably one of the best in the world at what you do.

[codeman99998]

As for Trinidad fighting Hopkins, didnt you see the size difference when they fought? imo Trinidad went too far and for that reason got knocked out (btw, fairly)

I tought Ali was the best fighter of all time, but why Sugar Ray Robinson should be then?

Ali even said SRR was better. Anyways, answer the question. Why is any one of those fighters better than SRR? You are trying to distract me with some other bullshit, trying to get ME to answer why SRR is the greatest when that isn't the question at hand.

Explain how any 3+ time titlist is better than SRR and you win the argument, I can't provide a better example than that. If you can't do it, you are wrong. I am not even asking you to show how EVERY 3+ titlist is better (which is what you've implied, that every one who wins 3 titles is better than everyone who doesn't). I mean, just name ONE that is decisively better and greater and I'll concede.

But you can't and you know you can't.

[Expert]

Ali even said SRR was better. Anyways, answer the question. Why is any one of those fighters better than SRR? You are trying to distract me with some other bullshit, trying to get ME to answer why SRR is the greatest when that isn't the question at hand.

Explain how any 3+ time titlist is better than SRR and you win the argument, I can't provide a better example than that. If you can't do it, you are wrong. I am not even asking you to show how EVERY 3+ titlist is better (which is what you've implied, that every one who wins 3 titles is better than everyone who doesn't). I mean, just name ONE that is decisively better and greater and I'll concede.

But you can't and you know you can't.


No, you tell me why SRR is better, and why he got knocked out while trying to win a title at a third different division (Lite Heavy). Me too, I'll concede.

[Expert]

How long have you been a boxing fan?


longer than you think, you?

[Expert]

I've been watching boxing for over 20 years but have to admit I didn't become a hardcore fan till 1994(Ruelas/Pendleton).

I only asked cause it seemed odd to me that you would question SRR being a greater fighter than ALI.


thats from what I heard (Ali the best ever).
Probably you can tell me why SRR was knocked out while trying to win a title at a third different division (Lite Heavy).


Why was that?

[bladerunner]

thats from what I heard (Ali the best ever).
Probably you can tell me why SRR was knocked out while trying to win a title at a third different division (Lite Heavy).


Why was that?
he quit cause of exhaustion he was winning the fight till that.
dont forget he started at lightweight and was trying to win the 175 title.

[Expert]

dont forget he started at lightweight and was trying to win the 175 title.

this is exactly my point, i mean, it aint easy moving up in weight classes, and that makes some fighters better than others.

[psychopath]

like Mayweather, de la Hoya and Pacquiao, rite?

Here's a complete list of Multi divisional Champs. :yep

FIVE DIVISIONS
Ray Leonard: Light Heavyweight (1988), Super Middleweight (1988), Middleweight (1987), Jr. Middleweight (1981), Welterweight (1979)

FOUR DIVISIONS
Roberto Duran: Middleweight (1989), Jr. Middleweight (1983), Welterweight (1980), Lightweight (1972)
Thomas Hearns: Light Heavyweight (1987, 91), Middleweight (1987), Jr. Middleweight (1982), Welterweight (1980)
Pernell Whitaker: Jr. Middleweight (1995), Welterweight (1993), Jr. Welterweight (1992), Lightweight (1989)

THREE DIVISIONS
Oscar De La Hoya: Lightweight (1994), Jr. Welterweight (1996), Welterweight (1997), Junior Middleweight (2001)
Roy Jones Jr.: Middleweight (1993), Super Middleweight (1994), Light Heavyweight (1996)
Mike McCallum: Light Heavyweight (1994), Middleweight (1989), Jr. Middleweight (1984)
Iran Barkley: Light Heavyweight (1992), Super Middleweight (1992), Middleweight (1988)
Wilfredo Vazquez: Bantamweight (1987), Jr. Featherweight (1992), Featherweight (1996)
Wilfredo Gomez: Jr. Lightweight (1977), Featherweight (1984), Jr. Featherweight (1985)
Alexis Arguello: Lightweight (1981), Jr. Lightweight (1978), Featherweight (1974)
Julio Cesar Chavez: Jr. Welterweight (1989), Lightweight (1987), Jr. Lightweight (1984)
Wilfred Benitez: Jr. Middleweight (1981), Welterweight (1979), Jr. Welterweight (1976)
Jeff Fenech: Featherweight (1988), Jr. Featherweight (1987), Bantamweight (1985)
Emile Griffith: Middleweight (1966), Jr. Middleweight (1962), Welterweight (1961, 63)
Henry Armstrong: Welterweight (1938), Lightweight (1938), Featherweight (1937)
Barney Ross: Welterweight (1934, 35), Jr. Welterweight (1933), Lightweight (1933)
Tony Canzoneri: Jr. Welterweight (1931, 33), Lightweight (1930), Featherweight (1928)
Bob Fitzsimmons: Heavyweight (1897), Light Heavyweight (1903), Middleweight (1891)
Terry McGovern: Lightweight (1900), Featherweight (1900), Bantamweight (1899)

And correction please . . . when a fighter wins at least three divisional titles they are not just good fighters . . . they should be regarded as exceptional fighters

:good :hi:

[Drew101]

Leo Gamez won titles in four divisions, but, it's patently ridiculous to claim that his legacy is any greater than, say Ricardo Lopez or a Myung-Woo Yuh (who defeated Gamez twice).

[Expert]

Here's a complete list of Multi divisional Champs. :yep

FIVE DIVISIONS
Ray Leonard: Light Heavyweight (1988), Super Middleweight (1988), Middleweight (1987), Jr. Middleweight (1981), Welterweight (1979)

FOUR DIVISIONS
Roberto Duran: Middleweight (1989), Jr. Middleweight (1983), Welterweight (1980), Lightweight (1972)
Thomas Hearns: Light Heavyweight (1987, 91), Middleweight (1987), Jr. Middleweight (1982), Welterweight (1980)
Pernell Whitaker: Jr. Middleweight (1995), Welterweight (1993), Jr. Welterweight (1992), Lightweight (1989)

THREE DIVISIONS
Oscar De La Hoya: Lightweight (1994), Jr. Welterweight (1996), Welterweight (1997), Junior Middleweight (2001)
Roy Jones Jr.: Middleweight (1993), Super Middleweight (1994), Light Heavyweight (1996)
Mike McCallum: Light Heavyweight (1994), Middleweight (1989), Jr. Middleweight (1984)
Iran Barkley: Light Heavyweight (1992), Super Middleweight (1992), Middleweight (1988)
Wilfredo Vazquez: Bantamweight (1987), Jr. Featherweight (1992), Featherweight (1996)
Wilfredo Gomez: Jr. Lightweight (1977), Featherweight (1984), Jr. Featherweight (1985)
Alexis Arguello: Lightweight (1981), Jr. Lightweight (1978), Featherweight (1974)
Julio Cesar Chavez: Jr. Welterweight (1989), Lightweight (1987), Jr. Lightweight (1984)
Wilfred Benitez: Jr. Middleweight (1981), Welterweight (1979), Jr. Welterweight (1976)
Jeff Fenech: Featherweight (1988), Jr. Featherweight (1987), Bantamweight (1985)
Emile Griffith: Middleweight (1966), Jr. Middleweight (1962), Welterweight (1961, 63)
Henry Armstrong: Welterweight (1938), Lightweight (1938), Featherweight (1937)
Barney Ross: Welterweight (1934, 35), Jr. Welterweight (1933), Lightweight (1933)
Tony Canzoneri: Jr. Welterweight (1931, 33), Lightweight (1930), Featherweight (1928)
Bob Fitzsimmons: Heavyweight (1897), Light Heavyweight (1903), Middleweight (1891)
Terry McGovern: Lightweight (1900), Featherweight (1900), Bantamweight (1899)

And correction please . . . when a fighter wins at least three divisional titles they are not just good fighters . . . they should be regarded as exceptional fighters

:good :hi:

where you got that list? it's very good.

I agree with you 100%. When fighters win at least 3 divisional titles they must be regarded as exceptional fighters.

[bladerunner]

Leo Gamez won titles in four divisions, but, it's patently ridiculous to claim that his legacy is any greater than, say Ricardo Lopez or a Myung-Woo Yuh (who defeated Gamez twice).
exactly.

[psychopath]

Couple of points about that list:

1) I didn't see PBF on it.

2) It was very biased towards SRL(some of those division titles were pretty suspect).

That's not my list buddy that's the list I've found in the International Boxing Hall of Fame Website (IBHOF) and probably they don't know who the fuck PBF is. :lol: Kidding aside . . . probably they haven'y updated it.

Here's the link check it yourself
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

On SRL . . . what do you mean some of the titles are suspect? Are you trying to belie history? :think

[bladerunner]

That's not my list buddy that's the list I've found in the International Boxing Hall of Fame Website (IBHOF) and probably they don't know who the fuck PBF is. :lol: Kidding aside . . . probably they haven'y updated it.

Here's the link check it yourself
[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

On SRL . . . what do you mean some of the titles are suspect? Are you trying to belie history? :think
well SRL won the 168 and 175 titles in one fight against Lalonde.

[psychopath]

where you got that list? it's very good.

I agree with you 100%. When fighters win at least 3 divisional titles they must be regarded as exceptional fighters.

From the International Boxing Hall of Fame website. :good

Here's the link: [Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Rock0052]

he quit cause of exhaustion he was winning the fight till that.
.

Which is why it's a good thing ESB wasn't around, because then we'd have 1000 posts talking about how Robinson was a quitter who had no heart. :lol:

[Expert]

From the International Boxing Hall of Fame website. :good

Here's the link: [Only registered and activated users can see links]


thanks a lot

[psychopath]

well SRL won the 168 and 175 titles in one fight against Lalonde.

Oh okay I got what you mean. :yep

Yeah that's because the governing bodies allowed and sanctioned it so it's official and it goes down the record book and in boxing history.

We cannot dispute that now.

[Rock0052]

Also to add a name to the list, RJJ won titles at 4 divisions- Middleweight, Super Middleweight, Light Heavy, and Heavy. Even if the HW win isn't included (which it probably would be since it looks like the IBHOF counts any and every belt), that's still 3.

[Expert]

Using your own standards, why are you even questioning that SRR was greater than Ali since Robinson is a multiple div. champ whereas Ali was only single div. champ.:huh

I told you, I hear all the time that Ali is the best ever, but why Ali even said SRR was better?

I guess that was cos Robinson was a multiple division champ, rite?

[psychopath]

Whover is going to make a list like that, they have to use the same standards.

If SRL is a 5 div. champ, then so is PBF and DLH(hold on to your hats)
is at the top as a 6 Div champ.

Hey hey chill off . . . the list is not updated you dig that? :lol: Don't question the standard because that's the International Hall of FAME group.

[psychopath]

Really, you got that from the IHF page....................
It's time to write them a-holes a nasty email:yep

Probably yeah . . . did you check the link? Maybe they update that list only once every year. :D

[codeman99998]

Robinson was ARGUABLY better than every fighter on that list, and definitely better than a lot of them.

Seriously, anyone who doesn't know Robinson was better than De La Hoya doesn't know enough about boxing to matter.