Most Title Defenses Ever By Weight Division - Does Longevity Really matter?

I saw this list the other day and thought it might be of interest.


Does longevity really matter anymore?

I get the feeling people don't place as much emphasis on it these days.

Seems to me to be less important when it comes to judging a fighter reading some posts.

Is it just the proliferation of belts? Many of these fighter were the man at their weight.



HW - Joe Louis - 25 Defenses - Lineal/WBA
CW - Johnny Nelson - 14 Defenses - WBO
LHW - Dariusz Michalczewski - 23 Defenses - WBO
SMW - Joe Calzaghe & Sven Ottke - 21 Defenses - WBO & IBF, respectively
MW - Bernard Hopkins - 20 Defenses - IBF
LMW - Gianfranco Rosi - 11 Defenses - IBF
WW - Henry Armstrong - 19 Defenses - Lineal
LWW - Julio Cesar Chavez - 11 Defenses - WBC
LW - Artur Grigorian - 17 Defenses - WBO
SFW - Tod Morgan - 12 Defenses - WBA
FW - Eusebio Pedroza - 19 Defenses - WBA mistake in list Abe Attell - 20 Defences - Lineal
SBW - Wilfredo Gomez - 17 Defenses - WBC
BW - Orlando Canizales - 16 Defenses - IBF
SFW - Khaosai Galaxy - 19 Defenses - WBA
FW - Pongsaklek Wonjongkam - 19 Defenses - WBC
LFW - Myong Woo-Yuh - 17 Defenses - WBA
MW - Ricardo Lopez - 21 Defenses - WBC 

Be more interesting if you showed the legth of their reign as well. Tired of hearing about Floyd's 17 year stint at the top when he's been inactive for about about 30-40% of it (retirement and even prison). Some jack-off (probably Az) stated that Vitali's 3 year lay-off should also be considered when considering his longevity and also Ali's 3 year ban.

It matters a whole lot more when the boxer is an actual champion rather than a titlist.

Monzon holds the middleweight record of 14, for instance.

I'm not sure who'd hold the record at super middleweight -- Calzaghe possibly with a paltry 3?

Good on anyone who can find a lineal list (various parties tend to disagree over lineages -- light heavyweight is a case in point with Ring hailing Roy Jones when he took all three major belts whereas Cliff Rold argued that Virgil Hill had been the true champ after beating Henry Maske).

Don't think it is as important in recent years as it has been in the past due to the fact a fighter can win a title and have several defences before he even fights someone rated.

In the days of one champion at the weight however I would say it should count for them, after all back then with the frequency of fights not many challengers were avoided (Burley, Langford excepted).

I always get a bit of man love going for Hank when I see that stat. I mean come on, the guy wasn't even close to being a natural Welter. Just incredible.

It would take a while to go down through the weights.

At cruiser there is only Hoyfield, O'Neill and Haye who have been undisputed champions and they have no defences between them.

I think Joe Louis remains the Daddy doesn't he? 25 defences spanning something like 12 years?

hazharrison wrote:I think Joe Louis remains the Daddy doesn't he? 25 defences spanning something like 12 years?

Ah but don't forget he fought no-one for his entire boxing career (including the Nazis) and was beaten by every HoF-er he faced therefore we can discount him completely. I've read this supposition on here therefore it must be true.

88Chris05 wrote:I always get a bit of man love going for Hank when I see that stat. I mean come on, the guy wasn't even close to being a natural Welter. Just incredible.

Would be a lot less if Zivic had not bought Burley's contract out.

Rowley wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:I always get a bit of man love going for Hank when I see that stat. I mean come on, the guy wasn't even close to being a natural Welter. Just incredible.

Would be a lot less if Zivic had not bought Burley's contract out.

Who's Burley (gets popcorn and sits back)........

DAVE667 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:I think Joe Louis remains the Daddy doesn't he? 25 defences spanning something like 12 years?

Ah but don't forget he fought no-one for his entire boxing career (including the Nazis) and was beaten by every HoF-er he faced therefore we can discount him completely. I've read this supposition on here therefore it must be true.

Ah, yes. Sorry, discount that. Did he beat any pound-for-pounders? Did he nick. Bloody charlatan.

Haglar has 13 lineal defenses at MW. I can't see any other fighter having more but I haven't checked.

Strongback wrote:Haglar has 13 lineal defenses at MW.  I can't see any other fighter having more but I haven't checked.

Marv has 12. Monzon had 14.

Next come Hopkins and Martinez with 6 (I think).

Longevity is important but who you beat is more important.......

The fighters say Louis beat bar the 1-1 with Walcott.........Frazier, foreman, liston, Lewis,Holmes , Tyson etc etc all whup easy......

However how many heavyweights could have Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Shavers and the like on their record......

As for titlists .........Sanchez being a titlist didn't do any harm to his great status.......and he was only champ for 2/3 years.......

Opposition first.........Longevity second.......

No offence to Marvin...........But I'd pick Hoppo, Nunn, Toney and probably Kalambay to beat all his opponents.........Bar Hearns who he made sure didn't get another shot...

Louis beat a few Hall of Famers including Schmeling, Sharkey, Baer, Braddock, Walcott x2, John Henry Lewis, Conn x2, and Bivins.

fantastic effort from johnny nelson, 14 defences without a punch thrown in anger.... cruiserweight: johnny nelson 14 defences, 0 offences.

You're the first to moan about Castillo......So try watching Louis v walcott 1.........

As for the rest great fighters the lot of them..

Even great 170 pound Conn that gave him fits..

hazharrison wrote:

Strongback wrote:Haglar has 13 lineal defenses at MW.  I can't see any other fighter having more but I haven't checked.

Marv has 12. Monzon had 14.

Next come Hopkins and Martinez with 6 (I think).

Ok he only got his hands on the lineal title when he beat minter.

Marv has 12 when you win the belt it's not a defence..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You're the first to moan about Castillo......So try watching Louis v walcott 1.........

As for the rest great fighters the lot of them..

Even great 170 pound Conn that gave him fits..

Eh Louis took the decision out of the judges hands.

Let's not derail the thread with the same debates. There are other weight classes.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Longevity is important but who you beat is more important.......

The fighters say Louis beat bar the 1-1 with Walcott.........Frazier, foreman, liston, Lewis,Holmes , Tyson etc etc all whup easy......

However how many heavyweights could have Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Shavers and the like on their record......

As for titlists .........Sanchez being a titlist didn't do any harm to his great status.......and he was only champ for 2/3 years.......

Opposition first.........Longevity second.......

No offence to Marvin...........But I'd pick Hoppo, Nunn, Toney and probably Kalambay to beat all his opponents.........Bar Hearns who he made sure didn't get another shot...

Hagler was amenable to facing Hearns, however, Leonard reared his head (and a match against Leonard was a no-brainer for Marv and Arum -- legacy enhancing and far more lucrative).

They fought twice............

I'm not arguing with you you're an idiot........

"Mayweather never beat an alltimer so not top 10".......Louis = 6....

"Mayweather never had a defining fight"...Louis level at 6 with Ali who had five of them......

Say's it all......

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Marv has 12 when you win the belt it's not a defence..

Just didn't read it properly as was speed reading. Counted the draw with Vito

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Longevity is important but who you beat is more important.......

The fighters say Louis beat bar the 1-1 with Walcott.........Frazier, foreman, liston, Lewis,Holmes , Tyson etc etc all whup easy......

However how many heavyweights could have Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Shavers and the like on their record......

As for titlists .........Sanchez being a titlist didn't do any harm to his great status.......and he was only champ for 2/3 years.......

Opposition first.........Longevity second.......

No offence to Marvin...........But I'd pick Hoppo, Nunn, Toney and probably Kalambay to beat all his opponents.........Bar Hearns who he made sure didn't get another shot...

Hagler was amenable to facing Hearns, however, Leonard reared his head (and a match against Leonard was a no-brainer for Marv and Arum -- legacy enhancing and far more lucrative).

"Hearns doesn't deserve a rematch"........He said that after the Shuler fight........Criticised for it in KO and Ring magazines..

Don't try to rewrite history..........He was cut and hurt and there were easier guys out there..Or so he thought..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You're the first to moan about Castillo......So try watching Louis v walcott 1.........

As for the rest great fighters the lot of them..

Even great 170 pound Conn that gave him fits..

Doug Jones weighed as low as Conn early in his career and he gave Ali fits.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Longevity is important but who you beat is more important.......

The fighters say Louis beat bar the 1-1 with Walcott.........Frazier, foreman, liston, Lewis,Holmes , Tyson etc etc all whup easy......

However how many heavyweights could have Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Shavers and the like on their record......

As for titlists .........Sanchez being a titlist didn't do any harm to his great status.......and he was only champ for 2/3 years.......

Opposition first.........Longevity second.......

No offence to Marvin...........But I'd pick Hoppo, Nunn, Toney and probably Kalambay to beat all his opponents.........Bar Hearns who he made sure didn't get another shot...

Hagler was amenable to facing Hearns, however, Leonard reared his head (and a match against Leonard was a no-brainer for Marv and Arum -- legacy enhancing and far more lucrative).

"Hearns doesn't deserve a rematch"........He said that after the Shuler fight........Criticised for it in KO and Ring magazines..

Don't try to rewrite history..........He was cut and hurt and there were easier guys out there..Or so he thought..

Absolute twaddle. Arum couldn't make the rematch because it wouldn't sell. No-one believed Tommy could overturn Hagler -- so comprehensive was his defeat. He cleverly matched Hagler with Mugabi and Hearns with Shuler (Hagler struggled, Hearns blew Shuler out) and so the rematch became a viable proposition. Talks began only for Leonard to steal in and usurp Hearns.

That was pre-title wasn't it.......

Mate.........No Heavy in history has beaten the standard of fighters Ali has and when someone has Louis joint 6 with him and marks down fighters like Mayweather for his opposition..

You know he's a wally of the highest order..

Looks like Dariusz Michalczewski has 16 lineal wins following his defeat of Virgil Hill. Of course he only kept the WBO belt and dumped the rest. This lineal thing doesn't make a lot of sense a lot of the time. Undisputed champion seems better to me.

I don't have a problem with being an alphabet champion these days as long as you fight good opponents because what some forget on here is that it's bloody hard to unify anything now.........It's detrimental to the sanctioning bodies bank account and in the old days there was basically just one title......

Modern guys are screwed by politics.......Hard to slap ward for not being unified when his vanquished opponent has the other two belts..

In fairness to Louis he dominated the scene............But would he have dioominated in Ali's era and would Ali have dominated Louis era......

I think we know the answers.........

Jeffries, Johnson, Lewis, Tyson, Holy, Bowe, Klits, Holmes, Witherspoon in shape, Tubbs, Page, Quarry, Frazier, foreman all dominate Louis era.......for me....

None of the above dominate Ali's.......

Why I have Ali miles ahead.......

Here's a list of current fighter deemed "the man" at their weight:

Light Heavyweight - Adonis Stevenson
Super Middleweight - Andre Ward
Middleweight - Sergio Martinez
Junior Middleweight - Floyd Mayweather, Jr.
Junior Welterweight - Danny Garcia
Junior Featherweight - Guillermo Rigondeaux
Flyweight - Akira Yaegashi

http://www.tbrb.org/

Wlad ????????

Logic says no. Vitali has always been the number two guy and they've never fought.

Ring made the controversial decision to award him their title after he beat Chagaev -- which was a hell of a stretch. Their ratings are mainly guff these days (since they sacked the likes of Collins, Dettloff and Raskin). Chuck Giampa does them single handedly.

Vitali is the number two guy........Surely the number one guy is the Man.......

Sanchez or Pedroza.................Both greats at the same weight at the same time..

Pedroza is a great feather and yet he was never the top man in his division....

Now that was an alphabet problem and that was thirty years ago.......

What chance have todays fighters got.

I think this HW era is a special case, so see where Haz is coming from. Wlad is def #1 and Vit #2, but most people up until recently would've backed Vit to beat Wlad meaning Wlad wasn't really 'the man' at the weight.

That said, I think the dynamic has now changed (Vit looking old) so I'd have Wlad 'the man' at the weight now. Especially if you're having a one trick pony like Adonis at LHW.

Martinez is the man at middle.......and how many think he'd beat GGG ????

You're the man until someone beats you.......Number 1....you're number 1..

Wlad for me is the man........

Just like Tyson was when Spinks was champion and avoiding the HBO series.......Spinks quit as number 1 when he gave up the belt......Vitali did when he retired first time out.....

For a lot of years the number two guy would have beat the the number one man.

TopHat24/7 wrote:I think this HW era is a special case, so see where Haz is coming from.  Wlad is def #1 and Vit #2, but most people up until recently would've backed Vit to beat Wlad meaning Wlad wasn't really 'the man' at the weight.

That said, I think the dynamic has now changed (Vit looking old) so I'd have Wlad 'the man' at the weight now.  Especially if you're having a one trick pony like Adonis at LHW.

Championships should only be won in-ring. Wlad has never beaten anyone in order to be proclaimed "champion" (obviously there's no such thing these days). It's nit-picking of the highest order, of course. His brother hasn't done him any favours in hanging around, that's for sure.

Stevenson at least beat Dawson, who beat Hopkins, who beat Pascal.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Martinez is the man at middle.......and how many think he'd beat GGG ????

You're the man until someone beats you.......Number 1....you're number 1..

Wlad for me is the man........

Just like Tyson was when Spinks was champion and avoiding the HBO series.......Spinks quit as number 1 when he gave up the belt......Vitali did when he retired first time out.....

Sergio is the champion until he's knocked off. GGG may be the better fighter (right now) but he can't be called a champ until he beats Martinez. It's thinking like that that gave credence to the alphabet bandits stripping fighters and awarding titles wily nily (for their own gain).
 
If only a billionaire would step in and sort boxing out. 8 weight classes, one champion. Champion must face number one contenders. Imagine that?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Martinez is the man at middle.......and how many think he'd beat GGG ????

You're the man until someone beats you.......Number 1....you're number 1..

Wlad for me is the man........

Just like Tyson was when Spinks was champion and avoiding the HBO series.......Spinks quit as number 1 when he gave up the belt......Vitali did when he retired first time out.....

Martinez still has to be beaten by GGG and he has been a good champ, a quality operator until age caught up with him.

That is what I am saying......

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I

In fairness to Louis he dominated the scene............But would he have dioominated in Ali's era and would Ali have dominated Louis era......

I think we know the answers.........

Jeffries, Johnson, Lewis, Tyson, Holy, Bowe, Klits, Holmes, Witherspoon in shape, Tubbs, Page, Quarry, Frazier, foreman all dominate Louis era.......for me....

None of the above dominate Ali's.......

Why I have Ali miles ahead.......

Louis would have been Ali's toughest fight.

He would have vyed with Ali for the No.1 spot.

Whatever way you look at it Louis and Ali were well ahead of the rest.

Louis would have been 15st if he fought in the 1970's.

Louis wouldn't have been Ali's toughest fight...He was a straight up fighter who ws barely 210............

Come on..................

Liston destroys Louis just like schmelling did..........He never moved his head..

Let's not argue......Let's just agree Louis at 6 sucks.........

Archie moore thought Jack Johnson would beat Louis.......I agree..........

Unfortunately the two ATG's he fought............Marciano and Charles both beat him......

Walcott 1-1 apart (and he was losing the 2nd fight as well before he pulled it out) was the only decent heavy he beat.....BTW for those who don't know Louis left the ring before the decision in the 1st fight, had to be called back!!....and agreed he'd been bettered........Hence the return

It's 2-0 to Louis for this guy when it suits... but 1-1 Floyd and Castillo when it doesn't......

get my drift............

There is not much point to you is there ??

You don't add anything....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Archie moore thought Jack Johnson would beat Louis.......I agree..........

Unfortunately the two ATG's he fought............Marciano and Charles both beat him......

Walcott 1-1 apart (and he was losing the 2nd fight as well before he pulled it out) was the only decent heavy he beat.....BTW for those who don't know Louis left the ring before the decision in the 1st fight, had to be called back!!....and agreed he'd been bettered........Hence the return

It's 2-0 to Louis for this guy when it suits... but 1-1 Floyd and Castillo when it doesn't......

get my drift............

Marciano and Charles didn't beat the real Joe Louis, as well you know, no more than Trevor Berbick beat Ali or Kevin McBride beat Mike Tyson.

Louis had masterful skills -- his subtle movement allowed him to set himself to punch -- as in dynamite punching -- often in machine gun bursts. He wasn't as flashy as Ali but he was effective.

No they didn't Haz.......But unfortunately they were the best fighters he fought above from the aforementioned Walcott.......

you have Norton creaming the Klits.........Hagler above Mayweather.............

So one might say you like to view the past rosily..........

Hagler above Mayweather??!!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Archie moore thought Jack Johnson would beat Louis.......I agree..........

Unfortunately the two ATG's he fought............Marciano and Charles both beat him......

Walcott 1-1 apart (and he was losing the 2nd fight as well before he pulled it out) was the only decent heavy he beat.....BTW for those who don't know Louis left the ring before the decision in the 1st fight, had to be called back!!....and agreed he'd been bettered........Hence the return

It's 2-0 to Louis for this guy when it suits... but 1-1 Floyd and Castillo when it doesn't......

get my drift............

From: http://www.boxing.com/how_to_box_by_joe_louis_part_fiveon_defense_the_shadow_of_jersey_joe_walcot.html

"The recent Manny Pacquiao-Timothy Bradley fight will be, for many, the benchmark robbery of their youth. This is a result so seemingly without explanation that of the one-hundred and twenty-five media sources I have seen produce a scorecard (including several from the guys at boxing.com) we have one-hundred and twenty-one scoring in favor of Pacquiao, three scoring in favor of Bradley, and one scoring the fight a draw. That is a ratio of around about 1:30 against those seeing the fight any other way than a win for Pacquiao.

The Pittsburgh Press conducted a ringside poll of writers at the venue the night Louis decisioned Walcott and whilst the majority, twenty-four, had Jersey Joe the winner, some sixteen had it for Louis. This is a ratio of 2:3 against."

Battered?