Is it fair if Virgil Hill gets voted into the HOF but not Michalczewski?

[crold1]

Armand Krajnc was the WBO champ

That says everything anyone needs to know about why no one would have lost a second's sleep about ignoring him in siting the Hopkins-Tito winner as undisputed.

[oc9979]

double standard. ignore him as a champ but we can not ignore Montell Griffin

[crold1]

double standard. ignore him as a champ but we can not ignore Montell Griffin

I ignored Griffin just fine. Hill was the champ and lost it to DM. Kranjc was irrelevant.

[joseph5620]

double standard. ignore him as a champ but we can not ignore Montell Griffin

One major difference there is that Griffin took a title from Roy Jones jr. Maybe you can explain how Kranjic got his belt to be considered relevant.

[joe strong]

Michalczewski once held 3 of the 4 titles, which is basically called "undisputed". he held the WBA, IBF and WBO title at one point and then held on to the WBO title. the lightheavyweight and the middleweight division have always been deep divisions throughout history so you can indeed compare middleweights to lightheavyweights.
in my top 5 I have guys like Bob Foster, Archie Moore, Michael Spinks, Michalczewski and Gene Tunney.
an old michal. losing to Gonzales (who is NOT a club fighter) doesnt mean anything. look at the guys Michal. beat and look at the guys Hopkins beat.
21 or 22 title defences from Michal. . thats called LONGEVITY. Michal won the 2 wars with Richard Hall. Roy Jones needed steroids to beat Richard Hall

the WBO was NOT a world title until about 2005...it was a european/asian based regional belt much like the NABF was to north america. joe calzaghe defended his WBO title like 20 times or something but only 3 or 4 of them were actually world title fights because the WBO was not recognized as a world title. many of the younger generation do not know this. the WBO is still the least respected to this day & has only been a world organization for about 8 years. so his win over virgil hill to collect the WBA & IBF from virgil hill was actually his first world title wins. he had a good record in germany but all his WBO title fights were NOT WORLD TITLE fights unless they were after 2005...

[joe strong]

From what I remember the WBO title was vacant in 2001.

The WBO was a regional belt not a world title in 2001...europn\asian based regional belt like the NABF was in north america...2005 is when it started getting recognized. it was a stepping stone belt that gave you a top 5-10 ranking in the WBC. any north american fighter who won it vacated it to get a shot at a real world title....

[joseph5620]

The WBO was a regional belt not a world title in 2001...europn\asian based regional belt like the NABF was in north america...2005 is when it started getting recognized. it was a stepping stone belt that gave you a top 5-10 ranking in the WBC. any north american fighter who won it vacated it to get a shot at a real world title....

I don't really remember much about the WBO in 2001. So I'll take your word for it.

[joe strong]

I don't really remember much about the WBO in 2001. So I'll take your word for it.

when a north american boxer won the title many of the WBO ranked top guys were in europe so they would vacate it instead of having to go overseas to defend it. the money was in the states back then when the economy was good & not many fighters wanted to go to europe because they were scared of getting robbed(happens everywhere as we know)& losing their high ranking. this happened lots in the HW division because the money was huge back then. if you got a title shot at the HW champion then you would pocket a few million minimum unless you were fighting someone like chris byrd as his drawing power was minimal & a few of his challengers made more money then him. that's why no one wanted to fight byrd. you lose in europe you could kiss your big american payday good bye so the WBO belt was not worth defending for a north american based fighter. it was a stepping stone to a world title shot or at least a big fight with title implications.

[Anthony342]

Hill-Maske is where the lineage restarts after years vacant. Hill left with two belts and a win over the WBC titlist in his second reign (Tiozzo). DM won it from him. There's a good case that DM and Roy ran about neck and neck until about 2000 when DM started to slip fast and went into maintain pay role.

The media didn't strip Erdei. He vacated the WBO belt (his only tangible link to the lineage absent the Ring belt) and moved up. That ended that lineage. Sure, he came back later, but so did Joe Gans and he had to beat Nelson to get his belt back at Lightweight.

So then DM was lineal champion at light heavyweight? And then Roy Jones became lineal when he beat Glen Kelly for the Ring title belt?

[Anthony342]

The WBO was still struggling to get full recognition from U.S. outlets. Not that it mattered. Tito-Hopkins was 1-2 by a mile and there was no dispute about who the Middleweight Champ was after that fight.

Yeah I thought I heard somewhere WBO wasn't a major belt until 2004.