Thank you for your comment! Given that there are people on both sides of the debate, each with understandable points, I presented both sides of the argument and included asterisks. I even put the naysayers' rationale first so that it didn't get buried:
"For some, it is reasonable to look at that designation as being akin to a 'champion-in-recess' or a 'champion emeritus,' where a fighter is no longer the primary titleholder."
It isn't a debate at all. Words have meaning. There is a dispute about their status, so they weren't undisputed. It's really as simple as that.
It's like trying to settle a debate about what the sum 2 + 2 is. The answer is 4, there can be no debate.
Tweet
Comment