Talk:List of world light-heavyweight boxing champions

Spinks, Erdei, et al as "World Champions"
I've been removing these folks from the "world champion" list for a few reasons. One, the LH championship was relatively stable until Foster was stripped. Then the WBA and WBC started inaugurating new champions. The list here recognizes that by listing these champions under their respective categories. Spinks certainly unified the title, but he is listed under the WBA and WBC categories so there is no need to list him as a "world" champion. Hill did unify a few belts but was not recognized as "world" champion by many in the boxing world. And Michaelczewski wasn't recognized as the "world champion" by most in the boxing world, either, even after he beat Hill. So it's not accurate to list either of them (or those who followed as WBO champs) in the "world champion" category. MKil 16:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)MKil

Wrong
Here's the correct list of World Light Heavyweight Champions;

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/lheavy.htm

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:vKzNYWytZoEJ:www.secondsout.com/usa/lusal.cfm%3Fccs%3D473%26cs%3D16982+erdei+linear+champion&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=uk
 * Again, that's simply an opinion. A few people in boxing recognize Michalczewski's claim to be the linear champ. Most do not, however. You can't start editing Wiki in order to push your opinion, even if it shared by a few boxing historians. This is a place for facts. The fact is that there is no such thing as the "world light heavyweight championship" today. There are a variety of fighters who hold sanctioning body belts and Bernard Hopkins who hold the Ring belt. That's it. To say that Erdei is "world champion" is an opinion and it does not belong here.MKil 13:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)MKil

It isn't a opinion. Why do you keep saying that? Historically, the world championship has been won & lost in the ring only, unless the champion retires, where the consensus top two (if there is one) can then meet to decide the new champion. The abc belts may as well be purely for show when the linear title is contested.

Most don't see it this way because frankly most, both media & fans, haven't a clue what makes a champion. Most know nothing about boxing history & politics. Unfortunately it seems only at heavyweight is the lineage followed by the public. Even The Ring are trying to introduce a similar policy, but in crowning Jones & Vitali they've shown they haven't much of a clue either, not to mention attempting to pass off their own belt as the freakin linear title. The fact that certain clueless people in the media preach on The Ring & HBO's crap is comical.

anyways...to deny that Michael Spinks was the world light heavyweight champion is insane, IMO.
 * It actually is an opinion. You may be surprised to hear this, but I generally agree with you. But I recognize that it's only one way of looking at the issue. It is a fact, however, that any "linear" championship is mythical nowadays. There are lineages to be followed, but no one bestows a linear title and no one really recognizes it outside hard-core boxing fans. So to try and insert that perspective in Wiki is wrong. If you wanted to write a footnote or something on the light heavyweight page focusing on the dispute, that would probably be OK. But to assert it like you are trying to do is inappropriate.


 * As far as Spinks goes, he's already listed under the the various sanctioning bodies' champions. There's no need to put him under the "world" title category. The way it's set up is for the pre-sanctioning era.MKil 16:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)MKil

My opinion is I disagree that it's mythical today.

"There are lineages to be followed, but no one bestows a linear title and no one really recognizes it outside hard-core boxing fans."

But we have - The Ring & plenty of two bit writers as well as HBO are ignoring recent history & claiming Hopkins is linear champion. Retarded. Even worse is that millions of noob fans believe this.

Pastrano, Torres & Tiger are listed as alphabelt champs as well as world. I dont see how Spinks is different. Was the title fragmented whilst Pastrano still held it? Wikipedia's stand should be clearly explained. Plus who's to decide Wikipedia's stand?

I take you don't recognise the linear heavyweight championship? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony Robbins (talk • contribs) 17:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Who's to decide Wikipedia's stand? Well, those abide by its rules and try to come to a consensus on the issue. You, however, have chosen in the past to engage in edit wars and name calling.
 * And as to your points about the LH listing, perhaps the page needs cleaned up. But to put Erdei, et al., on the "world champion" list is merely pushing your agenda.MKil 18:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)MKil

Werd. I respect your point of view on the subject. -- Anthony Robbins (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, the information here is unsourced, and at least some of it is inaccurate. Tommy Loughran, a native of Philadelphia was not from Ireland, nor was he the champion at any time in 1923, nor was the title vacant when he won it from the champ, Mike McTigue, on October 7, 1927.  I removed that bit of bullshit, but who knows what else is wrong here?