Tweet
Say baldamir who is the undisputed champ because he beat the champ and say mayweather collects all the other belts does he just become the unified champ or dose he become undesputed. I would think not. Just wondering what people think about this possible paradox.
-
-
I think the man who beat the undisputed man deserves more credit than the man who collects titles from title-holders that won their title by fighting for it when it was vacant.
With the example you gave, it's very hard to say because you still have Margarito and Hatton out there.
Let's say Baldomir gets past Gatt and remains the undisputed linear champ (as he beat the man who was undisputed - Zab Judah.) and then Floyd Mayweather fights Ricky Hatton and wins the WBA belt and fights Margarito and wins the WBO belt...it would be some big confusion in the Welterweight division. On one end you have the man who beat the man and on the other you have the man who beat the better fighters.
Like I said, it's hard to say. -
I was thinking that two but mayweather did not beat the Man when he was undisputed where mayweather beat the better fighters. Its not clear cut and dry thats why I posed the question. One would think if bauldi wins that he still is the man because he has not lost. I would not be fair to jugde him on what mayweather does, athough you can argue the point.Originally posted by jack_the_rippuhComment
-
Yeah. It would only be fair to have Baldomir labled as "the man" in the division until he loses. I'm a Mayweather fan, but fair is fair.Originally posted by AREALFIGHTERComment
-
thats how I feel about it.Originally posted by jack_the_rippuhComment
-
what do you guys think now after baldys winComment
to your mom..
Comment