Is Floyd This Only Boxer To Have Accomplish This...? (Serious Question)

A point to note: as much as I like Floyd, just about anyone else in history would, and has, been stripped of their title if they don't fight within six months or a year. Floyd has, very bizarrely, been allowed to keep his Ring/lineal title he got from Mosley for a year and half before fighting Ortiz, then allow to hold on to it for just shy of two years without a fight at 147 before Guerrero. Between winning it from Mosley and winning the lineal title from Canelo recently, he's had just two fights there. That's two fights in three and a half years. If you went through every lineal champ who moved up, fought and won another lineal title, but was allowed to keep his other title for nearly two years without a isn't, you'd come up with a list of one. Floyd Mayweather. Every other fighter would have been stripped long ago. When rules change for one fighter alone, and thus gives him a reasonably unique feat, while many other fighters who have done the same thing aren't gifted with the same feat, it kind of kills it. Floyd really didn't achieve it in the same way previous fighters have done so. He was given it and then allowed to keep it, while the other fighters earned it and had to keep earning it. Duran wasn't allowed to keep his lineal lightweight title for nearly two years while he fought and won the lineal welterweight title, yet Floyd was. Great achievement in itself nonetheless, but its very, very shallow historically in terms of lineal titles. Great post.

Lineal, not undisputed. Thats my point, why are fanboys saying he's undisputed?

So you are saying that Cotto vs Margarito 2, Ray vs Lalonde, Ward vs Dawson, Hopkins vs De La Hoya, Pacquiao vs De La Hoya, etc. do not count for you? Wasn't Ward vs Dawson & Pac vs Odh at actual weight classes? The rest yes i don't count them

So you are saying that Cotto vs Margarito 2, Ray vs Lalonde, Ward vs Dawson, Hopkins vs De La Hoya, Pacquiao vs De La Hoya, etc. do not count for you? 2 of those are not even CWs. The rest of them were pretty disgraceful

So did Ray Leonard cheated by winning the the Light Heavyweight Belt from Lalonde at 168lbs and the Super Middleweight Belt at the same weight? Of fcuking course, that's Exhibit A in cheating history. Though not on here from 2009-May 2013. But I've never seen SRL fans sh1t on another fighter for 3+ years for the same thing

Did you read what i wrote? So you are saying that Cotto vs Margarito 2, Ray vs Lalonde, Ward vs Dawson, Hopkins vs De La Hoya, Pacquiao vs De La Hoya, etc. do not count for you?

:lol1: Flo mos bigging up a Catchweight Lineal belt. What was that about cheating history? So did Ray Leonard cheated by winning the the Light Heavyweight Belt from Lalonde at 168lbs and the Super Middleweight Belt at the same weight?

So Pacquiao did not win the belt from Cotto at 145 and a vacant title for Margarito at 150. Did you read what i wrote?

:lol1: Flo mos bigging up a Catchweight Lineal belt. What was that about cheating history?

He won the title at 152 though so don't count for me just like all the other catchweight one's. So Pacquiao did not win the belt from Cotto at 145 and a vacant title for Margarito at 150.

Henry Armstrong did it in 3 divisions at the same time when there was only one undisputed champ. That's why I want Floyd to either face Garcia at 140 or Martinez for the MW lineal title. 3 belts, 3 divisions, AT THE SAME DAMN TIME! but it is not going to be the same since 2 of the divisions are Jr and back then. They didnt have Jr. WW or Jr. MW

He won the title at 152 though so don't count for me just like all the other catchweight one's.

Floyd is the undisputed champ in both divisions? Really? Lineal, not undisputed.

Floyd is the undisputed/lineal champion of both 147 and 154, i'm trying to think of who else has accomplished this... I feel I have a pretty good knowledge of boxing, my history is a little weak, anyone wanna enlighten me? I think it's pretty significant A point to note: as much as I like Floyd, just about anyone else in history would, and has, been stripped of their title if they don't fight within six months or a year. Floyd has, very bizarrely, been allowed to keep his Ring/lineal title he got from Mosley for a year and half before fighting Ortiz, then allow to hold on to it for just shy of two years without a fight at 147 before Guerrero. Between winning it from Mosley and winning the lineal title from Canelo recently, he's had just two fights there. That's two fights in three and a half years. If you went through every lineal champ who moved up, fought and won another lineal title, but was allowed to keep his other title for nearly two years without a isn't, you'd come up with a list of one. Floyd Mayweather. Every other fighter would have been stripped long ago. When rules change for one fighter alone, and thus gives him a reasonably unique feat, while many other fighters who have done the same thing aren't gifted with the same feat, it kind of kills it. Floyd really didn't achieve it in the same way previous fighters have done so. He was given it and then allowed to keep it, while the other fighters earned it and had to keep earning it. Duran wasn't allowed to keep his lineal lightweight title for nearly two years while he fought and won the lineal welterweight title, yet Floyd was. Great achievement in itself nonetheless, but its very, very shallow historically in terms of lineal titles.

Floyd is the undisputed champ in both divisions? Really?

There have been belts since before the days of John L. Sullivan, the first Marquis of Queensberry Heavyweight champ. But his belt caused it to become more fashionable. It was a gift (maybe) by public subscription and anyway was a huge public affair. years ago I read some old accounts reprinted in the Police Gazette about it. Ok. Badly phrased. Yes there was a belt, not many belts. And yes, as someone pointed out before 1920 there were sometimes several competing belts. But the present situation started in the late 1970s, early 1980s when several competing organizations sprung up, where their TOP 10 lists of contenders didn't include champions of other belts, and where often these belt holders didn't fight each other. It's as if the AFC champ and NFC refused to "unify" their titles and we're left with saying Green Bay would have killed the Jets if only they had played; or the Patriots were 17-0, of course they would win the Super Bowl.

Quite a few people. Hank Armstrong and SRR are two that come immediately to mind. In days gone by there were no belts - if you were the champion you were the champion (undisputed and linear). The term lineal only came up because of the number of belts and the number of people calling themselves champions. Second this glorified catch weight called Super Welterweight (154) didn't exist until the early 1960s. SRR was welterweight champion and middle weight champion. Henry Armstrong was Featherweight, Lightweight and Welterweight champion. Both were undisputed. Both lineal. Others that come to mind are Bob Fitzsimmons, Gene Tunney, Barney Ross. Oh Wilfred Benetez, Roberto Duran, SRL and others. There have been belts since before the days of John L. Sullivan, the first Marquis of Queensberry Heavyweight champ. But his belt caused it to become more fashionable. It was a gift (maybe) by public subscription and anyway was a huge public affair. years ago I read some old accounts reprinted in the Police Gazette about it.

Armstrong is special because they didn't have junior divisions. He was lineal champion at featherweight, lightweight and welterweight at the same time. That's insane if you sit down and think about it. They had a Junior Welterweight division. Both Canzoneri and Ross held it, Kid Berg was a Jun. Welter champ. I think that Armstrong skipped it because he felt that Ross was ready to be beaten. it was Ross's last fight.

Roy never held the lineal title? I guess he did never fight Michelczewski Nope Roy was never lineal at 175

The "Lineage" just traces back to the first Champion. "Lineal" titles didn't exist then because there was only one title. That's effectively all the "Lineage" is. Dan, there was lineage, meaning lineal titles. I used to read about it long before you were born. It was important because in those pre technology days, there might be fighters in different parts of the country "claiming" to be the champion. It was good for the box-office. I recall that in the "Coloured Championship" days, one of the champions still called himself champ because he'd only been beaten on a 2nd rd DQ. And he fought on as champ. It may have been Jack Johnson. It was sort of loose, and historians were always straightening it out.