Is Josh Taylor the Weakest Undisputed Champion?

[MalevolentBite]

Im voting for Kambosis and im an aussie. I would have voted Haney....but Haneys best fights were the Kambo fights. The rest of his fights are not worth talking about. At least Taylor "fought" for the titles.

Also for the record. Josh Taylor is 1-0 in defending his undisputed status. Haney is 2-0

Devin beat Kambosos to claim undisputed status. Then he beat him in the re-match to defend that status. Then again he defeated Loma for another undisputed status defense. Some ppl think Loma won.

Josh taylor defended his undisputed status against Jack and many people thought he lost that fight.

Use this information as you wish.

[Willie Pep 229]

In the World Boxing Council (WBC), a franchise champion is an honorary title given to a current WBC World Champion who is also considered an elite boxer. The WBC may designate one franchise champion in each weight category. The franchise champion is essentially a special designation and status, not a transferable title like the regular ( i called it full, sorry to confuse you) WBC world title.

Back in the day when alot of the sanctioning bodies had different versions of their belt. We always used to call the real champion the full belt holder. WBA really messed things up.

So I was correct! The WBC pulled another belt out of its azz for money. What nonsense these ABC titles have become.

Also, what you're saying is that the 'big four' have credibility because they are recognized by one another.

In other words, you are telling me that the WBA is credible because the WBC recognizes its existence.

There is an irony to this. It's like saying your a "made guy" because the other gangsters recognize you as a fellow criminal.

That is not a proper foundation for credibility.

[MalevolentBite]

So I was correct! The WBC pulled another belt out of its azz for money. What nonsense these ABC titles have become.

Also, what you're saying is that the 'big four' have credibility because they are recognized by one another.

In other words, you are telling me that the WBA is credible because the WBC recognizes its existence.

There is an irony to this. It's like saying your a "made guy" because the other gangsters recognize you as a fellow criminal.

That is not a proper foundation for credibility.

Yes. It's basically collusion between the big four. That's why the WBC doesnt like Turki using the Ring belt.

Boxing is one complete mess. The Muhammad Act fixed alot of problems but also created more. That's why TKO needs the Ring belt. That's the only belt the WBC can't sway away. Any other belts basically got brought out by the WBC (North American Boxing Federation) and others got casted away World Boxing Federation (WBF) and many others.

There's no reason why they can't recognize the IBO.