Which is better, never been a champion but had beaten champions or.....

[Thraxox]

Have been a champion but never had beaten a champion? In boxing legacy of course.

[dibzvincent143]

Have been a champion but never had beaten a champion? In boxing legacy of course.

The former had beaten past prime former champs? Coz its not logically possible to not be a champion after you beat the current champ/s?

And the latter just kept on winning vacant belts??

[Thraxox]

The former had beaten past prime former champs? Coz its not logically possible to not be a champion after you beat the current champ/s?

And the latter just kept on winning vacant belts??

Yea. Imagine this. After Keith had beaten DSG, the former beats Danny immediately and went on to beat non champion former champs, Porter, Berto etc. etc. but then fails to make weight at 147 and moves up to 154 and beats Lara, and Charlo who was on a comeback trail to after losing to Hurd. And then after a strong of unsuccessful title attempts (gets ducked) and fighting no hopers, moves up to fight a recently dethroned, 38 year old Golovkin and beats him before getting beat by the current 160 champion and retires.

The other wins vacant belts.

[buddyr]

The former had beaten past prime former champs? Coz its not logically possible to not be a champion after you beat the current champ/s?

And the latter just kept on winning vacant belts??

It is very possible. If a fighter chooses to take the Carlos Baldimir route of refusing to pay fees while beating all of the champs he’s faced. Boxers love belts though so I don’t see that trend catching on.

[MasterPlan]

That's like a NBA team beating former champions San Antonio Spurs in 2017 or Miami Heat in 2015 Who care if you didn't beat the current champs Golden State Warriors.

[dibzvincent143]

Yea. Imagine this. After Keith had beaten DSG, the former beats Danny immediately and went on to beat non champion former champs, Porter, Berto etc. etc. but then fails to make weight at 147 and moves up to 154 and beats Lara, and Charlo who was on a comeback trail to after losing to Hurd. And then after a strong of unsuccessful title attempts (gets ducked) and fighting no hopers, moves up to fight a recently dethroned, 38 year old Golovkin and beats him before getting beat by the current 160 champion and retires.

The other wins vacant belts.

It is still case to case. If the former champs are still in their primes and don’t always come off from losses then the former gets it.

If the one who kept on winning vacant belts always defend em from the number one contenders/challengers then he takes it.

[dibzvincent143]

That's like a NBA team beating former champions San Antonio Spurs in 2017 or Miami Heat in 2015 Who care if you didn't beat the current champs Golden State Warriors.

So if the former champ spurs eliminates the golden state warriors in the playoffs then gets beaten by celtics in the finals.
The spurs is still the bigger winner coz they beat the current champ? Hmmm

[filup79]

Look at Canelo,
Won a vacant 154 title at a catch weight of 150 that he didn't even make against M. Hatton.
Beat Trout for a WBA title by controversial open scoring in a title fight.
Beat an old Cotto for the 160 title at a catch weight and dropped it after
Beat L. Smith, the weakest 154 champ for a title.

Every other win he's had has been against old past it former champs and smaller guys. Always defended his 1st 154 title against past their prime and smaller guys that were WW until he fought Trout and Floyd. Defended his MW title against a WW and never defended the WBO title.

[E-Thug]

The first option is better for legacy. I believe, historians correct me if I'm wrong, a certain name springs to mind pertaining to the first option - the great Charley Burley

[Luilun]

Whats better is making the money. With 4 titles in each division and Cherry Picking Titles are as good as Halloween Costumes