The Greatest Ever 1-Weight World Champions

First topic message reminder :

A lot of emphasis is put on fighters proving themselves in more than one weight class. I personally dont think a fighter has to go up to prove his greatness, for example Ward could stay as SMW champ for the next few years and i would say he was a great. However on the flip side we have Manny and Mayweather who are 7-8 weight world champs!
I was wondering who are some of the greatest fighters to be only one-weight world champs (regardless of if they have fought at higher or lower weights than which they held the title. Im guessing most would be heavy's like Ali/ Frazier/ Foreman/Tyson who couldnt really fight at any other weight...

I'm asking you guys' opinion as I dont know!!!

Hagler above Mayweather........."schmelling, Braddock were great fighters"

I'm glad I'm a dunce too.......Hammer.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Hagler above Mayweather........."schmelling, Braddock were great fighters"

I'm glad I'm a dunce too.......Hammer.

Never a truer word said there.

Tris Dixon (editor of Boxing News) has Hagler above Mayweather also as do most expert polls. They're all morons though.

Trus dixon said it so it must true........

Pathetic............pathetic............Pathetic..........

35/35 polls on here have Mayweather higher..............So it's not most is it chump !!

Not this whole expert opinion nonsense again, wait ten years when Mayweather, Jones, Hopkins, Pacquiao, Marquez and Donaire are long retired and you'll see a change in opinion.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Trus dixon said it so it must true........

Pathetic............pathetic............Pathetic..........

35/35 polls on here have Mayweather higher..............So it's not most is it chump !!

I hear HBO have requested they use that stat on their next show......

Nice to have your own mind isn't it Hammer.......

The guy is a sad case...........Al Bernstein = expert !! Johnson at 7 !!

OH MY GAWD............

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Not this whole expert opinion nonsense again, wait ten years when Mayweather, Jones, Hopkins, Pacquiao, Marquez and Donaire are long retired and you'll see a change in opinion.

None of those will rate top ten all time. None.

Donaire? Guess that's your "I know more about the modern era" claim blown to smithereens.

35/35 polls on here have Mayweather over Hagler..........

They haven't got Johnson at 7 any of them so they can't be experts.. 

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Nice to have your own mind isn't it Hammer.......

The guy is a sad case...........Al Bernstein = expert !!       Johnson at 7 !!

OH MY GAWD............

You two have the same one and it's still only half the size of a normal adult.

You must find it weird that not one expert poll ranks Floyd as highly as you two? Weird isn't it? I just don't get it.....

You don't rate Donaire?

Why am I not surprised by that.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:35/35 polls on here have Mayweather over Hagler..........

They haven't got Johnson at 7 any of them so they can't be experts.. 

They're not experts because they're not experts.  

Remember when I said Duran thought Leonard could beat Hagler.......Haz laughed it off saying because he called Leonard a lady of loose morals he wasn't an expert.........

Bob Mee knows more about Leonard and Hagler........

More top grade logic.......

Mayweather is a fighter who easily impressionable people are drawn to. He acts tough, chucks money about, drives nice cars and generally acts like a Mr Winklechops which is what celebs are like in modern society.

He's an exceptional fighter, but the love in is because his fans are a bit dim. Just look at one direction, breaking records left right and centre.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You don't rate Donaire?

Why am I not surprised by that.

Rate him in comparison to what? Good fighter but a great one?

He doesn't rate any modern fighters.......Like Rodders...........

James jeffries would kick Lennox butt in five.......

Fitzsimmons would dance around Jones jr..........

Billy Backus would ko Mayweather in 5...........

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Remember when I said Duran thought Leonard could beat Hagler.......Haz laughed it off saying because he called Leonard a lady of loose morals he wasn't an expert.........

Bob Mee knows more about Leonard and Hagler........

More top grade logic.......

Quote me some of Duran's expert analysis over the years. Your straw grasping is staggering.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He doesn't rate any modern fighters.......Like Rodders...........

James jeffries would kick Lennox butt in five.......

Fitzsimmons would dance around Jones jr..........

Billy Backus would ko Mayweather in 5...........

Not one of those opinions mine. What a joke of a poster.

If you don't think Donaire is a great fighter than that proves my point perfectly, a four weight world champion who has actively seeked out the best. He got beaten by a rather special talent in Rigondeaux but that doesn't by itself undo everything he had done before, his offensive footwork was a joy to behold.

They are your opinions..........Haz..............

Anyone wants to look at my Leonard-Hagler thread feel free...........

Haz world.............Where Woods never wins a Major If Nicklaus was around.........Where Bolt finishes 10 metres behind Jesse Owens...........Where Tommy Burns beats Wlad klit......

Hammersmith harrier wrote:If you don't think Donaire is a great fighter than that proves my point perfectly, a four weight world champion who has actively seeked out the best. He got beaten by a rather special talent in Rigondeaux but that doesn't by itself undo everything he had done before, his offensive footwork was a joy to behold.

Three weight alphabet titlist (or are we counting interim titles now?). Good counter puncher, not as good when leading (and has struggled when made to). Great win over Montiel but didn't face Mares and was trounced against Rigo.

I guess anyone who picks up a few alphabet belts is great these days huh?

Rigo must be super great?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:They are your opinions..........Haz..............

Anyone wants to look at my Leonard-Hagler thread feel free...........

Haz world.............Where Woods never wins a Major If Nicklaus was around.........Where Bolt finishes 10 metres behind Jesse Owens...........Where Tommy Burns beats Wlad klit......

Again, I've never claimed any of that.

You were the one who said Floyd wasn't top 100.

Beats Vic Dar becomes the man at flyweight
Beats Montiel becomes the man at bantamweight
Beats Nishioka becomes the man at super bantamweight

He wanted to fight Mares but Arum wouldn't let it happen, he had to give Arum an ultimatum to make the Rigondeaux fight happen.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Beats Vic Dar becomes the man at flyweight
Beats Montiel becomes the man at bantamweight
Beats Nishioka becomes the man at super bantamweight

He wanted to fight Mares but Arum wouldn't let it happen, he had to give Arum an ultimatum to make the Rigondeaux fight happen.

Wonjongkam was the boss at flyweight when Donaire knocked out Darchinyan, so that's incorrect.

He didn't establish superiority at bantam either (Arum's fault of course).

So, super bantam only. And he was trounced by Rigo six months later.

The ring magazine beg to differ on both of your first two points but what do they know they're not expert enough any more.

So let me guess on top of beating the number one bantamweight in Montiel he had to also beat Moreno, Agbeko and Mares?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The ring magazine beg to differ on both of your first  two points but what do they know they're not expert enough any more.

So let me guess on top of beating the number one bantamweight in Montiel he had to also beat Moreno, Agbeko and Mares?

Ring didn't have a championship policy when Donaire defeated Darchinyan but Wonjongkam was the lineal champ. He was "the man" (not Donaire as you wrongly claimed).

They reinstated their policy before the Montiel fight but Donaire didn't qualify for it against Montiel -- which is strange seeing as you asserted he was "the man" when he won. He wasn't. So you're incorrect again.

You're not very good at this modern stuff. Maybe join me and Rodders back in the black and white days?

You also claimed he was a "four weight champion". Also incorrect.

Not doing very well at all.

Wonjongkam had a claim to the lineal title but it was nothing more than a claim just like Lewis' after beating Briggs. The ring magazine had Donaire ranked as their number one flyweight not Wonjongkam who was not seen as the best at the weight.

Again Montiel was the number one ranked bantamweight in the world who was beaten by Donaire, lineal titles don't mean a thing any more, with the proliferation of titles they lost meaning in the 80's.

For all intents and purposes Donaire was the number one ranked fighter at three seperate weights, some include interim titles some don't, I feel it depends on the quality of fighter not the title itself.

Being the number one ranked fighter is plainly different to being the champion (which is what you claimed he had been -- incorrectly).

Wonjongkam didn't just have a claim to being top man -- he was top man from 2001 on.

Ring's policy (a magazine you yourself place great stock in judging by the number of times you google their ratings) was in place when Donaire beat Montiel and the win wasn't deemed worthy enough to merit championship status (and as the policy was still pretty creditable back then, that signifies he hadn't proven his superiority at the weight).

Still, you're the expert on modern boxing. My nephew knows more than thee lad!!

You know so very little and are so contradictory, on one hand you dismiss Lewis' lineal claim then on the other acknowledge the claim of Wonjongkam. Donaire wasn't ranked at number two when he faced Montiel so the ring magazine didn't put their belt on the line but who cares, we all know who the best at the weight was. Titles are largely meaningless now but what is meaningful is that Darchinyan has only ever been knocked out twice and by the same man with the same punch. That punch did for Montiel, almost did for Rigondeaux and set up the finish for the Nishioka fight.

Wonjongkam had a claim to the lineal title it was not set in stone just like Lewis' wasn't, just like Jones' wasn't or any subsequent light heavyweight.

As far as i'm concerned his performances and wins against three highly regarded fighters at three different weights is a better indicator of his ability than any title.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You know so very little and are so contradictory, on one hand you dismiss Lewis' lineal claim then on the other acknowledge the claim of Wonjongkam. Donaire wasn't ranked at number two when he faced Montiel so the ring magazine didn't put their belt on the line but who cares, we all know who the best at the weight was. Titles are largely meaningless now but what is meaningful is that Darchinyan has only ever been knocked out twice and by the same man with the same punch. That punch did for Montiel, almost did for Rigondeaux and set up the finish for the Nishioka fight.

Wonjongkam had a claim to the lineal title it was not set in stone just like Lewis' wasn't, just like Jones' wasn't or any subsequent light heavyweight.

As far as i'm concerned his performances and wins against three highly regarded fighters at three different weights is a better indicator of his ability than any title.

Not one media outlet heralded Lewis's win over Briggs as a heavyweight championship victory (as in THE heavyweight championship). That's a fact. Holyfield ranked above Lewis until Lewis fought him.

Wonjongkam was viewed as the top man, however. I'm not making this up - it merely seems contradictory to you as you're so uninformed. I guess you can't google context.

The only claims that have been disproven here are yours. Are you not embarrassed to have suggested that I know very little in the same thread you claim Donaire is a four weight champion?

Donaire is a fine fighter yet hardly likely to threaten the all time rankings as you also bizarrely alluded to earlier.

You're a doughnut.

As others have said, it can be tricky pinning down exactly what a '1 weight fighter' is. Fair enough, you've asked for those who simply won world titles in one division, but just for the sake of the thread I'll try and keep it to men who not only won titles in a single division, but who also had either all or a large majority of their significant fights / wins within that one weight class (so that excludes Greb, for instance, who beat arguably as many fine Light-Heavyweights while fighting as a slightly blown up Middle as he did top class Middleweights).

I'll exclude the Heavies, too, for the same reasons others have outlined.

1) Benny Leonard (still generally think of Benny as nothing more than a Lightweight, despite him occasionally spotting a few pounds to the top Welters of his day).
2) Carlos Monzon
3) Willie Pep
4) Archie Moore (again, room for debate there, but his Heavyweight record isn't hot enough to make him ineligible here, for me)
5) Marvin Hagler
6) Joe Gans
7) Kid Gavilan
8) Jimmy Wilde
9) Jose Napoles
10) Salvador Sanchez

Very tough. On top of the above, you also have names like Ketchel, Pryor, Zarate, Loughran, Saldivar, Bob Foster etc, with quite a few others worthy of consideration, too, some of which I'll have forgotten no doubt.

I guess the above does kind of show how the original eight weight classes will always hold a lot more brownie points for a fighter in terms of becoming known as a great, though. How high, realistically, could you place a fighter who won titles in just one division (and had just about all of their meaningful fights there), but in a division which wasn't one of the original eight?

Pryor? Probably rated a shade higher than his bread 'n' butter record entitles him to be based on his exciting style and generally speaking a cut beneath the names above. Terry Norris? Fantastic talent and compiled a eye-popping record in championship fights at 154, but throughout his championship years (1990-1997) the Middleweight class, just 6 lb north of him, housed names such as Nunn, McClellan, Jones, the Johnsons (Glen and Reggie), Hopkins, McCallum, Kalambay etc at various points. Kind of gives the impression that Norris was happy to stay in the safe haven of Light-Middleweight and contend for a pound for pound crown which, in retrospect, he was probably fast-tracked towards undeservedly.

Same for Kostya Tszyu, perhaps. Now I like and rate Kostya and enjoy watching his fights from yesteryear. Defied conventional wisdom by being an all-out brawler who, oddly enough, actually seemed to excel against speedy, slippery boxers who were quicker than him and tried to box him going away (Hurtado, Gonzalez, Mitchell, Judah etc) but then struggled a bit when an opponent stood in front of him and brawled at close quarters (Phillips, Hatton). But while there's nothing wrong with those aforementioned wins, between 1995 and 2005, the Welterweight division, again at different times, could have offered him any of Whitaker, Trinidad, Quartey, De la Hoya, Forrest or Mosley.

In theory, by now the additional divisions should be producing fighters as good as any of the original ones, especially as the gaps in weight are often so small, and now and then they do (Super-Middleweight between 2008 and 2012 being much better than 160 or 175 either side of it, for example). But that still seems to be very much the exception, not the rule.

You're so far up your own arse Haz you fail to see that all your posting is opinion, none of it is fact. I prefer to use one publication for rankings and that's it, you on the other chop and change depending on which one suits your point. Wonjongkam was no more seen to be the man at flyweight as Lewis was at heavyweight.

Different publications have different opinions it really is that simple. The ring magazine didn't recognize Wonjongkam until Donaire and Vic Dar had long moved up.

I am not alone in considering Donaire a future great, he's a sure fire hall of famer, no two ways about it. As he's a current boxer none of your historians rate him so as a sheep you don't either as you're too lacking to formulate an opinion of your own.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You're so far up your own arse Haz you fail to see that all your posting is opinion, none of it is fact. I prefer to use one publication for rankings and that's it, you on the other chop and change depending on which one suits your point. Wonjongkam was no more seen to be the man at flyweight as Lewis was at heavyweight.

Different publications have different opinions it really is that simple. The ring magazine didn't recognize Wonjongkam until Donaire and Vic Dar had long moved up.

I am not alone in considering Donaire a future great, he's a sure fire hall of famer, no two ways about it. As he's a current boxer none of your historians rate him so as a sheep you don't either as you're too lacking to formulate an opinion of your own.

If no current experts rate him as a sure fire hall of famer.....how is he a sure fire hall of famer? A future great? So he isn't great yet but surely will be? What does any of that mean?

The fact that Lewis wasn't recognised as THE heavyweight boss after beating Briggs isn't opinion - it's fact. All you need to do is read a magazine report or watch the video back. It's quite true.

You meanwhile claim Donaire was a four weight champion. That's not true.

I don't chop and change my opinion to suit either - I refute that suggestion. I give you the facts to counter your ill-informed googling.

Aren't you tired of continuing a lost argument?

Love the way Chris interjects with a valiant attempt to steer the thread onto higher ground.

Like a gentleman stepping around two drunks scuffling outside a chip shop!

I think you need to wake a bit Haz, it's plain to see that you don't rate any boxers from the past 20 years, that is an irrefutable fact.

I base my opinions on the fights i've seen and always have, in the build up to the Briggs fight the HBO commentators touched on the fact the fight was for Briggs lineal heavyweight title. It is a matter of opinion whether you take that claim seriously or not, I personally do not but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter. On the flip side of that I don't take the claim of many middleweight and light heavyweight champions of the 40's too seriously either. Was Maxim the best in the world? Hell no. Did he deserve his title shot? Again a no.

World titles are all well and good but a fighter makes a title not the other way round. At light heavyweight in the late 90's and early 00's there were two lineal claimants, the consensus was that Jones was more deserving as he was more talented and more importantly American. DM on the other hand was a unified champion who beat the man who beat the number one contender, a pretty cast iron claim if you ask me. The problem with that is where his lineal title ends up and that's Zsolt Erdei instead of the more accepted Joe Calzaghe.

The days of one world title are long gone so situations like Ward at 168lbs and Martinez at 160lbs are increasingly rare. Now to me Donaire was the best in the world at three different weights when he beat Darchinyan, Montiel and Nishioka, the fact the ring belt was only won against the latter is of little significance.

Donaires record and ability make him a shoe in to the hall of fame, if Calzaghe just got in then he will as well quite easily providing his career doesn't completely derail. The lower weights are quite refreshing in that we see the best fight the best time after time, the Mares has yet to happen but that is of no fault of Donaire.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I think you need to wake a bit Haz, it's plain to see that you don't rate any boxers from the past 20 years, that is an irrefutable fact.

I base my opinions on the fights i've seen and always have, in the build up to the Briggs fight the HBO commentators touched on the fact the fight was for Briggs lineal heavyweight title. It is a matter of opinion whether you take that claim seriously or not, I personally do not but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter. On the flip side of that  I don't take the claim of many middleweight and light heavyweight champions of the 40's too seriously either. Was Maxim the best in the world? Hell no. Did he deserve his title shot? Again a no.

World titles are all well and good but a fighter makes a title not the other way round. At light heavyweight in the late 90's and early 00's there were two lineal claimants, the consensus was that Jones was more deserving as he was more talented and more importantly American. DM on the other hand was a unified champion who beat the man who beat the number one contender, a pretty cast iron claim if you ask me. The problem with that is where his lineal title ends up and that's Zsolt Erdei instead of the more accepted Joe Calzaghe.

The days of one world title are long gone so situations like Ward at 168lbs and Martinez at 160lbs are increasingly rare. Now to me Donaire was the best in the world at three different weights when he beat Darchinyan, Montiel and Nishioka, the fact the ring belt was only won against the latter is of little significance.

Donaires record and ability make him a shoe in to the hall of fame, if Calzaghe just got in then he will as well quite easily providing his career doesn't completely derail. The lower weights are quite refreshing in that we see the best fight the best time after time, the Mares has yet to happen but that is of no fault of Donaire.

I've been awake since you were in nappies.

World championships may no longer exist but there's a movement in the media toward recognising the true boss in each division. Klitschko, Stevenson, Ward, Martinez, Mayweather, Garcia, Rigo and Yaegashi have all achieved that by establishing themselves as one of the two best fighters at the weight and then knocking off the other guy.

Donaire achieved that only once - against Nishioka at super bantam (and was then roundly trounced by Rigondeaux). He didn't take care of Pong at flyweight or Mares at bantamweight.

Ask yourself: How many truly great fighters were ever whitewashed like Donaire was against Rigo?

Again - the Lewis argument is lost. Lewis wasn't heavyweight boss until he defeated Holyfield. And I'm a huge Lewis fan.

The fact that you personally declared Donaire the champion at each weight doesn't mean he was when facts and logic dictate otherwise.

Donaire may get there yet but as it stands the list of guys he missed is looking better than those he beat.

As for not rating modern fighters: Mayweather could have competed with any welter in history and was truly special at super feather. I rate Jones highly all time and of today's bunch Rigo and Ward look special. Pacquiao, Barrera, Marquez, Hopkins and Morales would also crack a top 100.

Where do I start with great fighters who were trounced like Donaire was against Rigo

Well Archie Moore against both Charles and Burley, the best two he ever faced, Louis against Schmeling, Frazier against Foreman, Gomez against Sanchez. The list is almost endless but undoubtedly there will be excuses for each and every one of them.

There are no facts here, the opinions of a magazine aren't facts, no more than mine and no more than yours. The Lewis argument isn't lost at all he beat the mean who beat the man who beat the man etc. just like nearly all the champions in the 40's did.

Not fighting Ponjongkam is hardly a big gap on a ledger while Mares is a promotional issue, not sure we can use that against Donaire myself and in light of Gonzalez beating him inside a round will go largely forgotten.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Where do I start with great fighters who were trounced like Donaire was against Rigo

Well Archie Moore against both Charles and Burley, the best two he ever faced, Louis against Schmeling, Frazier against Foreman, Gomez against Sanchez. The list is almost endless but undoubtedly there will be excuses for each and every one of them.

There are no facts here, the opinions of a magazine aren't facts, no more than mine and no more than yours. The Lewis argument isn't lost at all he beat the mean who beat the man who beat the man etc. just like nearly all the champions in the 40's did.

Not fighting Ponjongkam is hardly a big gap on a ledger while Mares is a promotional issue, not sure we can use that against Donaire myself and in light of Gonzalez beating him inside a round will go largely forgotten.

The list is almost endless? Poppycock. I don't mean a great fighter being knocked out - I mean whitewashed through twelve rounds when the great fighter was at their best weight and in their prime. Louis was a mere baby - Gomez a super bantam. That list is most certainly not endless.

There are no facts here? What utter rubbish.

Not fighting Pong and Mares mean he's only been top dog in one division - for six months. Top talent but a true great? Not yet.

I could quite easily say that Donaire was at his best at bantamweight or lower which looking at his performances would seem quite a fair assertion. What about Moore, what are his excuses against Burley and Charles, a pre title younger Archie Moore wasn't as good as the older version i'm guessing. Whether you're comprehensively knocked out or beaten over 12 rounds the result is the same. Gomez had to move up a full 4lbs to face Sanchez, he was beaten because of the weight he was simply beaten by a far better boxer who wasn't intimated by his power.

The facts are that Lewis' was the lineal champion as was Ponjongkam but it is opinion to whether it mattered or not especially when . Donaire for instance would only have claimed the ring belt at flyweight if he beat Naito not Wonjongkam as you have claimed while at Bantamweight it was Moreno and not Mares he would have needed to beat. We as fans know the fights we want to happen and those that matter.

Back to the actual topic, I would agree with Chris that the junior divisions do struggle for recognition especially lower down where there's no need for them. Khaosai Galaxy is one of the better lower weight champions but if we're honest he's a bantamweight who tried to increase his phyiscal advantages and power by fighting at super flyweight. Just look at the lower divisions and the fighters right now, Mares, Agbeko, Darchinyan, Arce, Mijares, De Leon, Gonzalez, Donaire, Montiel etc. all flit up and down at will.

With regards to Leonard and Moore, they are one weight world champions but had success at the higher division something Monzon and Hagler didn't attempt. Moore was also a highly ranked contender at middleweight in his younger days.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I could quite easily say that Donaire was at his best at bantamweight or lower which looking at his performances would seem quite a fair assertion. What about Moore, what are his excuses against Burley and Charles, a pre title younger Archie Moore wasn't as good as the older version i'm guessing. Whether you're comprehensively knocked out or beaten over 12 rounds the result is the same. Gomez had to move up a full 4lbs to face Sanchez, he was beaten because of the weight he was simply beaten by a far better boxer who wasn't intimated by his power.

The facts are that Lewis' was the lineal champion as was Ponjongkam but it is opinion to whether it mattered or not especially when . Donaire for instance would only have claimed the ring belt at flyweight if he beat Naito not Wonjongkam as you have claimed while at Bantamweight it was Moreno and not Mares he would have needed to beat. We as fans know the fights we want to happen and those that matter.

If, as you suggest, Donaire was at his best as a bantamweight then he simply didn't get enough done to be considered a shoo-in all time great (or shoe in as you termed it). Four fights in a stint that failed to establish himself as top man in a division that also held the likes of Mares, Moreno and Agbeko. He didn't enter the Super Four, nor did he look to take on the winner (Mares). Mares beat both of those and Darchinyan. His record as a bantamweight is way better than Donaire's (a Mares fight would have qualified for championship status with your precious Ring Magazine -- whose annual ratings you google in an attempt to look less dense).

Gomez was a super bantamweight and no more. Before you started googling boxer's records, four pounds was a tough ask in top level boxing -- this was before testosterone lozengers, HGH and all manner of other concoctions that permit fighters to leap over divisions without losing speed or power these days.

Donaire is 31 and as he's evidently a clean fighter he doesn't have long left (he looks to have slipped in recent fights in fact). After losing to Burley, Moore went on to rule as light heavyweight king for 10 years. If Donaire can repeat that feat then yes, he belongs up there with the old timers. And look at how often Moore was fighting when he went down to Burley -- shuffling from town to town trying to earn a buck -- he was ragged all over by Booker only a few months earlier (and fought in between).

The Lewis and Ponjongkam cases are entirely different -- despite what googling the ring annual ratings tells you. That says everything about your supposed superior knowledge -- clueless.

You're like one of those kids at school who grew a pube 'tasche.

How exactly are the Lewis and Wonjongkam (not Ponjongkam as you called him) different?

Briggs was the lineal champion when Lewis beat him, Wonjongkam also beat the lineal champion, neither claim was taken seriously as better fighters were around. For Lewis there was Tyson and Holyfield, for Wonjongkam there was Darchinyan, could you please explain to me how the situations are different?

You are making yourself look like a very bitter old man with your constant google jibes, Donaire is a current favourite of mine and I have followed his career since he upsurped Vic Dar. The Mares fight has never been a possibility because of the promotional 'cold war' as Hopkins puts it, GBP wont deal with TR and vice versa. GBP offered Arum a fair chunk of money to put the fight on but he declined it.

Gomez was a featherweight, I don't care about junior divisions in the slightest below middleweight, the actual size difference between the two is something a great fighter should be able to overcome. We are not talking about a bantamweight jumping up to featherweight like the good old days but ultimately super bantam is a sub division of featherweight.

Boring craic. Pong was linear champ from 2001 to 2007 and top man throughout that period. This is a lineage that stretches back eons. Darchinyan wasn't even around when Pong became lineal champ.

Briggs nicked a disputed win over Foreman -- whose own claims to being heavyweight king were completely discredited in his subsequent three fights against a trio of puddings (the first of which should have been given a decision over George). Briggs was never rated close to the top of the division -- wasn't even in the argument.

Surely even you can join the dots and realise these are two completely different scenarios.

Go and google it.

But for his untimely death Salvador Sanchez's reign at featherweight would've been one of the best ever.

At the time of his death he'd already made 9 successful defences and he was only 23.