Greatest title reign

Pure and simple question really, which boxer has had the greatest title reign in any division setting aside anything that went before or after.

For me it would have to be Carlos Monzon, not the most eye catching fighter but he always found a way to win convincingly against a wide range of different styles. He often chose to beat opponents at their own game whether they be boxer, slugger or brawler. I digress anyway, during his reign he defended the middleweight title for a then record 14 times, 13 of those opponents were ranked in the top ten by the ring magazine with the other being the undisputed welterweight champion in Jose Napoles. Has any boxer ever had a reign that comes close to competing against Monzons?

Ricardo Lopez. The little guys often get over-looked (myself included). But I've been reading up on his recently and what he did at the weight was simply amazing. There will never be another like him. Add to the equation that little guys burn out quicker than bigger guy, his longevity was awesome. Not a bad fighter also.

I fully expect Tino to agree with you on Lopez

It's very hard to evaluate the lower divisions as it is commonly exempt of american and european fighters which makes it far less glamorous on these shores. Behind Wilde he is THE little man in boxing but will admit my knowledge of the lower divisions isn't good enough to really pass judgement on his reign as it would be mainly against men i've not heard of or seen. Bantamweight and below his reign would be number one without doubt.

Joe Louis.....1937 -1948..............25 consecutive defences.......Against brawlers..... counterpunchers....cagey types like Walcott..... and fancy dan types like Conn..

Nice article, Ghosty.

As you say, it's difficult to look past Monzon for this one, particularly when you consider that he is one of the very few legitimately great pound for pound operators to have never lost a world title fight.

As he himself said: "Sugar Ray Robinson may have been great, but I am greater. Robinson held the title several times, but that's because he kept losing it. I'll only hold it once because I'll never lose - that's great."

Carlos isn't quite painting the fairest picture there, mind you, but as he himself alluded to, he was THE dominant Middleweight champion of all time.

Anyway, there are a couple of other serious contenders for me, first up being Armstrong's Welterweight reign between 1938 and 1940. Short in terms of time elapsed, but in less than two and a half years he crammed in nineteen successful defences against many men of the top rank; after taking the title from an acknowledged all-time great Welter in Ross, his subsequent victims as champion included Baby Arizmendi, Pedro Montanez, Ralph Zanelli, Ceferino Garcia and a host of other top five ranked names. Factor in the fact that Armstrong was inside the Lightweight limit for about half of these defences, and inside the Light-Welterweight limit for all but a couple of them, and his feats deserve an astronomical amount of credit.

Outside of that, I might just have Arguello at 130 lb nicking the bronze medal. Escalera was one of the better Super-Feather champions of the era and Alexis took the title from him, before adding inside schedule wins in his eight defences against Chacon, Limon, Navarette who, along with Boza-Edwards (who he even beat in a non-title fight in his pomp) would pass Alexis' old WBC belt between them like a hot potato for the next three years. And to top it off, Arguello never lost the title in the ring, instead simply vacating it to go after Lightweight honours.

To be honest there are a few which could nick that third sport, but Carlos and Hank have to be the top two here, I think.

Is this the same Limon that lost to a pre-pubescent Camacho..

Boza edwqrds was run of the mill.....as for Chacon.......have you seen the Mancini fight...

Arguello had a great career but over the weights........

Louis has the numbers but doesn't quite have the quality of Monzon or a few others, it's not as bad as many make out and the bum of the month tag attributed to it is very harsh but he did defend against his fair share of chaff.

Armstrong at Welterweight is a great shout Chris, his pound for pound exploits often hide how good he was at 147lbs and it wasn't lacking in quality either, Montanez was a tough guy who was mercilessly beaten around the ring like a ragdoll. Like most though he had defences against fairly over matched opponents like you said in Ross, Arizmendi, Montanez, Zanelli and Garcia he has several eye catching names too.

Monzon's reign to me is like Hagler's..........The odd good fighter and a few blown up welters.......

Ray Robinson kills him...........Although we shouldn't really talk about death with this guy..

The problem with heavies is that there aren't many of them. The natural weight for most people across the globe is between Mid to LHW hence the best boxers and most competitive divisions in boxing history have been in those weights.

Robinson at middleweight was a bit too hit and miss to make a firm favourite against any great at the weight, if Basilio and Turpin can beat him then Monzon definitely can.

Norton could beat Ali...................

Folly to go down that road......

Just don't think our murdering friend's competition was that hot...........I'd pick Hagler in a steaming hot night in vegas....

I wouldn't give Hagler much chance myself, Valdes is probably the best middleweight either of them faced nor did Monzon struggle particularly with smaller men or those moving up.

Tommy Hearns was the best middle Hagler faced......

Love to see Monzon get past his jab and then swallow the right hand.....

The right lands flush he goes............

Might have been the best Hagler faced but as an actual middleweight he wasn't as proven as Valdes, disregarding all the pound for pound nonsense aside for Napoles all of Monzons opposition had proved their worth in the division.

No because he didn't stick around..thought he'd knock out 175ers instead....

We can assume the right hand Shuler tasted sends Valdez, Monzon and even Hagler into la la land.....

Hearns had it all except a chin and nobody including Robbo had anything else but a puncher's chance..

hearns lands it's good night..

You do love to make Hearns out to be untouchable don't you Truss, not like Hagler took him out with one punch he was connecting throughout the two and a half rounds it lasted. Landing on Shuler is one thing but the most telling thing is that he didn't land it on either Barkley or Hagler.

Have to agree with Truss here. Hearns is the best pure boxer I have seen. Great inside fighter for someone his size. Probably the best jab in boxing history. Combines with his fearsome power, he is the total package. But for his chin.......!

Hearns had another chink besides the chin- stamina.

I wouldn't say Hearns had a stamina issue. Naturally his punches had less zip as a fight wore on but that's normal for any fighter, isn't it?

Fast twitch fibre's (which we can assume Tommy had in an abundance) are oxygen guzzlers. So generating that much power required huge physical exertion, and Thomas didn't exactly use his power sparingly, so I'd say, in comparison to other power punches, he had good stamina.

To his credit as his power faded over the course of a fight he could always rely on his skills to keep his foe at bay. However, with tiredness, as with everyone, his chin only worsened.

If Hearns couldn't flatten Minchillo and Sutherland at his best weight, despite landing repeatedly on them for round after round, I struggle to see how he's going to finish off someone like Monzon, who in any case, is about ten times stronger than Tommy.

I never thought that Hearns was especially chinny, nor that he lacked much in the way of stamina (see the Benitez fight for evidence of that). I do think that, compared with his peers, he was as thick as two short planks, mind. If his immense natural talent couldn't get the job done, you could bet that Tommy would have to turn to Steward for the answers. Thinking on the hoof was not his strong suit.

As to the thread, agree with Monzon 100%, who not only thrashes Hearns, but beats Hagler more often than not. The murderer never seemed to feel the need to fight men of the standard of Obel and Hamsho twice each, nor to sully himself with the likes of Caveman Lee. His opposition (Benvenuti, Briscoe, Valdes, Napoles) is demonstrably superior to the best of Marvin's. Hearns is the stand-out among those, but even Tommy's record at middleweight is patchy.

Robinson the middleweight has a horrible night with Monzon as well. A losing record against Fullmer and an even one against Basilio give him only an outsider's chance of beating someone of Monzon's strength at 160. Useless to pick holes in Monzon's title reign - it hasn't been bettered for dominance. I'm amused to see Truss put up Louis as an alternative, by the way, when he has spent much of the past few years damning Joe's title opposition as "chaff".

Roldan and Shuler...got flattened...............

Hearns is one of my all time favourite fighters and a true great, but no way he beats Monzon at Middleweight. I would make Monzon a clear favourite to beat anyone in history at that weight, he had it all and very few if any weaknesses. Cant help but think if he had been American rather than Argentinian he would be given even more respect for how good he really was.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I fully expect Tino to agree with you on Lopez

Nah. Great fighter though he was, and my favourite ever (did I ever mention that?), Az is way off the mark with El Finito. Way off. His numbers are incredible, his style was something special and his longevity is a marvel. But, it is way too much of a leap of faith to call his reign the best ever. Some of his opposition, although not as suspect as some people would have you believe, is not good enough. Aside from Alvarez, he also failed to meet the best of his era as well. Fights with 'Chiquita' Gonzalez, Carbajal, Mark Johnson and Yuri Arbachakov could all have feasibly have been made but didn't happen for whatever reason. In my opinion, Lopez beats them all, but too much of his career is guesswork. Top 3 Mexican of all time, but no-where near the greatest title reign.

Hard to argue with Monzon. So I won't.

Nice thread, Ghosty.

But no way loses to Hearns....

Who did he fight with Hearns jab and brutal right????

Hearns lands he goes.........No one outboxes Hearns..

No one outboxes Hearns..

Not sure Monzon would even try to outbox Hearns. Monzon had that rare ability make people fight his fight and could seemingly control the tempo at will. In all likelihood he gets right in Tommy's face and stays there using his strength and rough inside game to beat Hearns up.

Tommy would eventually be worn and walked down by Monzon's heavy shots in the later rounds. A tough fight for both men but Monzon wins it 8 or 9 times out of 10 - at least.

Hearns would love to have him in his face........over even quicker!!!

We all saw the right hand that levelled 175 pound durable Andries.....

But no this guy that never beat a fellow 160 pound great just shrugs it off....

Look at his championship record and apart from old man welter Napoles and a load of stiffs......The best fighters he fought Briscoe, Griffiths (another old man), Valdez etc all took him the distance!!!!

Makes you wonder how he stops Hearns from dominating with his one in a million jab and taking centre ring until the right gets let go...

Cuevas shed his load inside the ring against Hearns (never seen a macho fighter so intimidated!!)....

I know what Hearns brings to a Monzon party but seeing as Monzon never fought anybody with Hearns lightning speed, jab, power and all round skill then I don't know what Monzon brings.....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:No one outboxes Hearns..

Maybe not, but they did, now and then, beat him by other means. And those who managed it were, Leonard aside, of a lower rank than Monzon.

Aside from Hill (which, for a number of reasons, is Tommy' greatest accomplishment in my eyes), Hearns never looked quite as dominant when he didn't hold a number of physical advantages over his opponent. Against the top class guys, I mean, not the Shulers of this world. Hearns might have a inch or so in height on Monzon, and reach too, but he can't match him for strength, chin or stamina at 160.

Granted, Monzon could be a bit of a macho man at times and put himself in the line of fire, and with Hearns' heavy artillery you can't rule out the chance that he perhaps catches Monzon, a slow burner, cold in the early stages. But I think a more likely scenario is that Hearns throws everything he can at Monzon, and starts the brighter of the pair, but finds that the man from Argentina just won't go away and is gradually worn down any time after the mid rounds.

Monzon to stop a fatigued and demoralized Hearns somewhere around the tenth round, for me.

Who outboxed him then.....

You don't shrug off a Hearns right hand on the button...

Monzon had a punchers chance like everybody else.......

Monzon did everything well and had no weaknesses, he controlled the tempo of a fight well, and used his size and stamina to great effect.

The guys he fought were OK, but far from great, the best he fought was a 5ft 7" welterweight in Napoles. After that Griffith or Valdez and Benvenuti.

He beat an unfocused Valdez in the first, and was knocked down in the return before a points win.

Griffith was a light punching but beatable fighter, with a decent enough chin and skills.

Benvenuti was at the VERY END of his career when he fought Monzon and had already been beaten by Griffith and a 40yo Dick Tiger.

Monzon also fought people with decent records at first glance, such as Mundine but guys like him fought almost exclusively the australian's.

I don't mean this to be a Monzon bashing thread but for me he was good at what he did. He did nothing brilliantly, but most importantly he did nothing bad. He was a big guy with good strength, a good reach and used these to great effect to control the tempo of a fight and dominate, much similar to Wlad. I know Ghosty, Monzon had a better chin, could body punch and had exceptional stamina. (however, Wlads chin is not as bad as is made out, a small guy will generally have better stamina than a 6ft 6" 245lb guy, and Wlad is so dominant when dictating range that he doesn't need to body punch).


Anyway, Monzon:a truly great fighter and but not as great as he's made out to be. Undeniably his reign was fantastic and that was the original question.

But Monzon fought 40 years ago Mackem.....

Funny how Chris won't have Mayweather in a top 20 alltime list and he fought 4 top 10 p4pers as well as having twice the longevity...

But this guy is god!!!................

We are wsting our time Mate...

It's like Fleischer saying Dempsey bangs Ali out...

Floyd makes my top twenty without any bother, Truss. Makes my top fifteen without any bother, in fact. Please don't start implying that I'm backing Monzon on the basis of him fighting a decade or so ahead of Hearns. Not the case at all.

You've changed you tune.....But you do have Monzon above Floyd?????.....

Like I wrote on my thread there doesn't seem to be much difference between his reign and a guy you've chastised often in CALZAGHE!!!

Just pointing this out.......do have great respect for your opinion...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You've changed you tune.....But you do have Monzon above Floyd?????...

You'll be delighted to hear that I have Floyd higher, Truss!

I rate Calzaghe higher than a lot of others on here (if you think I've 'chastised him' then wait and see what LJ and the like have to say!) but I won't airbrush over the fact that, of those twenty-odd Super-Middleweight defences, all but a few of them were, for the most part, pointless exercises against men who can count themselves lucky to have even contested a fragmented version of a 'world' title, which really is saying something considering the times.

You can cut anyone's record to shreds (well, nearly anyone's) if you want to cast an overly critical eye on them, but not too many men have owned a historically deep and fully-recognised weight class for as long as Monzon did, and with so few patsies during their reign, too.

Historically deep ????..............

But not at the time.........

You won't find too many other Middleweight champions who beat better names though, Truss. I'd say that Monzon's best wins compare favourably to those of Hagler, Hopkins and Robinson at 160.

You disagree, which is fair enough, but Hearns didn't get beaten by Hagler and Barkley as a Middle and Monzon didn't go on to dominate the division for seven years by accident.

Don't throw the Barkley one in there...

You could call the first two rounds 10-8.......and the third was complete murder till the lottery punch..

You might as well chuck Cooper at Ali....

Why should we ignore the Barkley affair, Truss? Simply because Hearns lost, I presume?

That was a Middleweight title fight in which Hearns was still reasonably young if, admittedly, a little past his absolute, magnificent best. The fact that he lost it to a fighter such as Barkley, who can't see the Monzons of this world with a telescope, surely undermines your argument that Hearns was some close to unbeatable beast at 160 lb?

Tommy was an all-time great Welter and a superb Light-Middle, and that's exactly where most of his best moments came. At 160 lb upwards, the highs (Andries, Hill, Roldan) are matched pretty evenly with the lows (Barkley I and II, the near-disaster against Kitchen).

You're arguing that there's a huge case to be made that Hearns beats Monzon at Middleweight virtually every time, from what I can see. I'm simply opining that there isn't, based on the evidence at hand.

No because it was a fluke....He hurt Barkley severely and it was a wild swing.....

Appreciate your opinion on Spinks vs Holy....Mate...

by TRUSSMAN66 Yesterday at 10:18 pm

Joe Louis.....1937 -1948..............25 consecutive defences.......Against brawlers..... counterpunchers....cagey types like Walcott..... and fancy dan types like Conn..


seconded

88Chris05 wrote: the near-disaster against Kitchen).

'The heat's' nickname would have been so much better had his name actually been kitchen

That was at 168......................

milkyboy wrote:

88Chris05 wrote: the near-disaster against Kitchen).

'The heat's' nickname would have been so much better had his name actually been kitchen

Didn't even realise I'd written Kitchen rather than Kinchen there, Milky! And you're right, by the way.

You didn't know it was Kinchen!!

You don't know your stuff...you've been found out.........we've all lost respect for you..

Now go to the naughty corner...

B-Hop's reign as undisputed Middleweight King was pretty special. 20 straight title defences IIRC.

Does anyone know much about Tommy Burns?

He's fourth in the number of world heavyweight title defenses (11)?

Was he any good, were his defenses against decent opposition etc?

Cheers.

I just watched a video of him against squires....whats with the Lycra Hotpants?

Not a bad fighter, Mackem. Shortest Heavyweight champion (5'7"), first to defend his title against a black fighter and defended all over the globe, too. Good puncher, but he was closer to a Light-Heavy really, as were a lot of the men he defended the title against. The O'Brien results are questionable, perhaps, given O'Brien's subsequent admission that he featured in so many fixed fights, and when he came up against a genuine Heavyweight at his best (Johnson, of course) Burns was well beaten.

One of the better Heavyweight champions in history up until that point, did a good thing for boxing in finally giving Johnson his shot (even if his actual feelings towards blacks weren't that friendly!), and I guess you could argue he's a tad underrated, although the fact that he was never really the best in the world puts a less impressive tint on those eleven defences.

Johnson is a top 3 heavyweight in my book......So a late round defeat isn't anything to be ashamed of......

Good heavyweight champ that beat much bigger men generally with his big right hand...

Later turned his back on the sport and disowned boxing after finding religion....

Better than "Not a bad fighter" ..for sure..