Greatest Championship Reigns In History By Weight

First topic message reminder :

Heavyweight: Joe Louis
Cruiserweight: Evander Holyfield
Light Heavyweight: Archie Moore
Super Middleweight: Andre Ward
Middleweight: Carlos Monzon
Light Middleweight: Terry Norris
Welterweight: Henry Armstrong
Light Welterweight: Julio Cesar Chavez
Lightweight: Roberto Duran
Super Featherweight: Gabriel Elorde
Featherweight: Abe Attell
Super Bantamweight: Wilfredo Gomez
Bantamweight: Manuel Ortiz
Super Flyweight: Khaosai Galaxy
Flyweight: Pongsaklek Wonjongkam
Light Flyweight: Saman Sorjaturong
Straw Weight: Ricardo Lopez
 
Do they look correct?

I'll remember to big up Mayweathers win over Marquez likewise.

This is a Mayweather free thread (unless you want to argue his super featherweight run).

Sick to death of seeing his name on here - I can't believe there are three or more posters equally obsessed with him. Boring as hell.

I agree Haz two folk repeatedly accusing each other of using Boxrec is far more entertaining

I think Hammersmith has won via shut out UD. A couple of 10-8 rounds thrown in to show the ownership.

Well done Ham Har. I have learned something from this thread.  

Boxrec by TKO

Boxrec DKSAB

Pound for pound top 3 of all time:

1. Boxrec
2. Wikipedia
3. Thomas Hauser

Super featherweight has to be between Arguello and Mayweather, no real difference in timescale but quality wise a ever so slight edge to Arguello.

catchweight wrote:Pound for pound top 3 of all time:

1. Boxrec
2. Wikipedia
3. Thomas Hauser

Where the hell's Bob Mee?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Super featherweight has to be between Arguello and Mayweather, no real difference in timescale but quality wise a ever so slight edge to Arguello.

Hmmmm. Flash Elorde? Hiroshi Kobayashi? Brian Mitchell?

azania wrote:I think Hammersmith has won via shut out UD. A couple of 10-8 rounds thrown in to show the ownership.

Well done Ham Har. I have learned something from this thread.  

If Ghosty's new nickname is BOXREC your new nickname is HEADREC.


It's no coincidence that the board got dragged down when you showed your face again around here.

You coming back as YDKSAB tells it's own story.

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Super featherweight has to be between Arguello and Mayweather, no real difference in timescale but quality wise a ever so slight edge to Arguello.

Hmmmm. Flash Elorde? Hiroshi Kobayashi? Brian Mitchell?

Elorde is a possibility but Mitchell held a title for a long time but the absence of fighting any of the better fighters harm his reign. Nelson, Fenech, Molina and Hernandez were all around but he faced none of them while the best guy he faced in Lopez he drew with. Elorde is a good shout though, with a title reign not sure how much if any impact non title fights has where he was quite inconsistent, he turned on the style when he needed to though.

Strongback wrote:

azania wrote:I think Hammersmith has won via shut out UD. A couple of 10-8 rounds thrown in to show the ownership.

Well done Ham Har. I have learned something from this thread.  

If Ghosty's new nickname is BOXREC your new nickname is HEADREC.


It's no coincidence that the board got dragged down when you showed your face again around here.  

You coming back as YDKSAB tells it's own story.

Strongy you got owned. Call me YDKSAB for all it's worth. It doesn't detract that Ham Har totally wiped the floor with you. If Ham Har is indeed Ghosty, then he doesn't need BoxRec to assist him. As you know Ghosty and I have previous, but I always give credit where it's due. You got a bich slap from him.

Seriously what has happened with this place over the last few days, first it is insults left right and centre then accusations of aliases before we go for the holy trifecta of telling people they got owned. Does anyone fancy finishing all their posts with L*L to confirm once and for all we have all become morons overnight.

Grow up.

Good boy Azania. The cheerleading suits you. You have no ideas of your own.


I said Moore's reign at LHW is no.1 or no.2 of all time with Charles being top dog p4p.

All the other guff BOXREC posted didn't do anything to change this fact.

Rowley wrote:Seriously what has happened with this place over the last few days, first it is insults left right and centre then accusations of aliases before we go for the holy trifecta of telling people they got owned. Does anyone fancy finishing all their posts with L*L to confirm once and for all we have all become morons overnight.

Grow up.

Spoke too soon, you forgot the good old fashioned tactic of finishing a sentence with fact .

Strongback wrote:Good boy Azania.  The cheerleading suits you.  You have no ideas of your own.


I said Moore's reign at LHW is no.1 or no.2 of all time with Charles being top dog p4p.

All the other guff BOXREC posted didn't do anything to change this fact.

You really need to enlighten me here Strongy, quite how me taking into account the style in which Foster ruled is guff I do not know and I also do not know what relevance Charles has.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Rowley wrote:Seriously what has happened with this place over the last few days, first it is insults left right and centre then accusations of aliases before we go for the holy trifecta of telling people they got owned. Does anyone fancy finishing all their posts with L*L to confirm once and for all we have all become morons overnight.

Grow up.

Spoke too soon, you forgot the good old fashioned tactic of finishing a sentence with fact .

Changed your posts I see. Thought you had a chance to slay me with one of your super semantic killer blows. Sorry to disappoint you.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Strongback wrote:Good boy Azania.  The cheerleading suits you.  You have no ideas of your own.


I said Moore's reign at LHW is no.1 or no.2 of all time with Charles being top dog p4p.

All the other guff BOXREC posted didn't do anything to change this fact.

You really need to enlighten me here Strongy, quite how me taking into account the style in which Foster ruled is guff I do not know and I also do not know what relevance Charles has.

Charles is considered the best fighter that ever fought as LHW but never got a shot at the title. Moore was great and held the title for a long time. Two great fighters at LHW.

It was when I said the above you freaked out about Charles and starting waffling on about Foster.


Moore beat a hall of famed in Maxim three times. That's better than anything Foster has.


As to the rubbish you talked about Moore struggling with Durelle I don't think you used your eyes to watch that fight. It's seen as one of the highlights of Moore's career. He won fighter of the year in 1958 for that fight. One of the most courageous performances ever seen in the ring.


Have a watch for yourself. Moore was in his 40's.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTtzltIK2ng&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Strongback wrote:Good boy Azania.  The cheerleading suits you.  You have no ideas of your own.


I said Moore's reign at LHW is no.1 or no.2 of all time with Charles being top dog p4p.

All the other guff BOXREC posted didn't do anything to change this fact.

You're a funny one my young padowan. You accuse me of not having ideas of my own when all you do is use so called experts to justify your opinions but up to the point where the experts disagree with you.

Twerp.

Anyway you're getting pwned!

lol

If that isn't struggling with Durelle then I don't know what is and his age doesn't matter, it doesn't magically make his reign better than it was. You can wax lyrical about that win if you so wish but I don't see it as a positive that he had to go to the well to beat Durelle. This will apparently be waffling because the IBRO only have him as the 5th greatest 175lber but Foster dismissed fighters of a higher level with ease. It's not one of Moores finest nights, it showcases his heart but also shows his vulnerabilities and age when he was champion.

How is it waffling on about Foster to suggest that easily defending his title is an impressive feat, with Foster the level of opposition is the main thing it's the way he did it, check out his fights with Tiger, Rondon and Quarry to see what i'm talking about. He took out three of the best 175lbers of the time with one punch, i'm not talking about hall of famers but level of performance.7

Moore has Maxim, Foster has Tiger but obviously to get credit Bob would have needed to rematch him twice just to prove a point beyond doubt.

Had Moore eased through his defences then I would happily place him above Foster in this case but I have to take into account he had to come back from the brink on more than one occasion.

The Durelle fight is an incredible show of courage for a man well in his 40's.

How he got up from that 3rd knock down I'll never know. To get knocked down again and then turn the fight around is one of the best turnarounds ever in the ring. Moore beat his best opponents earlier. Maxim three times for instance. Moore endeared himself forever with the American public with the way he won against Durelle.


As I said before good luck with saying Foster has a better resume as champ. He clearly doesn't.


You can believe what you like but don't expect me to go along with it.

Well I can't argue with Boxrex can I strongy, nothing like using my own eyes to watch the fights in question, I may as well just look at a list of names instead. I'm not arguing that Moore defended against better opposition although there's no real difference between Tiger and Maxim quality wise while Johnson is the best win of either. You seem unable to comprehend that boxing isn't fought on paper and that the level of performance also makes a difference.

Moore beating Durelle is one of the great fights but it is not one of Archies greatest nights, the fact he got knocked down three times in the first round is not something to applaud but to criticise. He turned it out as a true champion does but he shouldn't have had to do that against Durelle.

Leonard turning it around against Hearns is one of the great performance because of the standard of opponent, had he done that against Davey Green we wouldn't be waxing lyrical about it.

I personally do not think it's an outlandish claim to suggest that Foster has the greatest light heavyweight reign, if we're downplaying his opposition why are you not doing the same for Louis?

This is like a parent educating a stubborn child.

Az unless you have something to actually contribute yo the subject don't post

You know your stuff Rowley, do you think it's an absurd claim to say Foster has the greatest reign?

Ok. I agree with Hh. Great stuff.

Certainly not absurd. Perhaps does not have the most stellar names but the absolute dominance he displayed should not be under played. Have not really give it too much thought and suspect I might go wigh Moore but the gap is by no means a chasm

I just wasn't sure if I was making some outlandish claim, I don't think there's much in it either way but it's certainly up for debate. Although in reality it wouldn't be if Charles and Tunney were given their chance.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Well I can't argue with Boxrex can I strongy, nothing like using my own eyes to watch the fights in question, I may as well just look at a list of names instead. I'm not arguing that Moore defended against better opposition although there's no real difference between Tiger and Maxim quality wise while Johnson is the best win of either. You seem unable to comprehend that boxing isn't fought on paper and that the level of performance also makes a difference.

Moore beating Durelle is one of the great fights but it is not one of Archies greatest nights, the fact he got knocked down three times in the first round is not something to applaud but to criticise. He turned it out as a true champion does but he shouldn't have had to do that against Durelle.

Leonard turning it around against Hearns is one of the great performance because of the standard of opponent, had he done that against Davey Green we wouldn't be waxing lyrical about it.

I personally do not think it's an outlandish claim to suggest that Foster has the greatest light heavyweight reign, if we're downplaying his opposition why are you not doing the same for Louis?

Louis has better opposition than Foster. He also has 25 straight defences over 12 years the greatest number of all time. Louis set the bar very high.

Louis is also the best textbook puncher of all time.


Here's a nice video on Louis with slow motions showing the subtle things he did.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R78hdxpRfws

Foster has 14 defences of the lineal title in 7 years more than any other light heavyweight while his win over Tiger is better than any of Louis', as I said you are very selective with your statistics.

9 defences in 10 years matters but 14 defences in 7 years doesn't.

Foster beat a 38 year Tiger at the end of his career who had campaigned practically his whole career at middleweight or below. Tiger has very few credentials at Light Heavyweight.

There was a 7 inch height difference between Tiger and Foster.


The significance of the Tiger fight is that Foster was given a long overdue shot at the title.

Foster was a tall man but was beaten 8 times at heavyweight which represents a losing record at heavyweight of 8-0.

Foster had a few more than 8 fights at heavyweight, he lost 8 times but he won a few against the lower level, i'm not sure what relevance his heavyweight exploits have here.

Tiger beating Torres twice isn't too bad as far as credentials go.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Foster had a few more than 8 fights at heavyweight, he lost 8 times but he won a few against the lower level, i'm not sure what relevance his heavyweight exploits have here.

Moore was just 1 inch shorter at 5"11 and Tiger beating Torres twice isn't too bad as far as credentials go.

The 8 loses he has are all at heavyweight.


Is Torres a HOF'er? I don't know.

Not really the same as Maxim having a win over SRR. 3 wins against Maxim and Johnson are better than what Foster has.

It not Foster's fault he came in a weak era and couldn't get a good test. He's still probably the hardest puncher p4p who ever lived.

Ignore the Moore height bit.

Yes the losses all came at heavyweight, failing to see what the relevance is to his light heavyweight reign.

*Claps hands sharply

Anyone for light middleweight? Hearns? Norris? Kalule?

McCallum for me Haz

Hammersmith harrier wrote:McCallum for me Haz

Just checked it out - 6 alphabet defences but solid opposition (Braxton, McCrory, Jackson, Curry).

Hearns has 4 championship wins (including signature wins over Benitez and Duran). Norris 4 also but lesser opponents.

That's a pig to pick.

At 154lbs Haz you're pretty much looking at alphabet champs.

McCallum edges it by a slither from Hearns because of that Jackson win, both of them generally defended against smaller men.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:At 154lbs Haz you're pretty much looking at alphabet champs.

McCallum edges it by a slither from Hearns because of that Jackson win, both of them generally defended against smaller men.

The Curry win was the big one. I need back up to help with that one!

With Norris you can be blinded by the names he beat during his first reign; Mugabi, Leonard, Casto, Curry, Blocker and Taylor.

I think like all the junior divisions it's difficult to really have an informed opinion, even as recently as the late 90's i'm sure Hopkins could have made 154lbs but he chose not to. Duran and Mosley skipped light welterweight, Mayweather, Benitez and De La Hoya barely fought there. Super middleweight is the only one to really have kicked on.

You can have an informed opinion -- moreso probably as the divisions are so much younger.

I'm judging title reigns as single entities -- as if they were a career in their own right (nothing that came before or after matters).

Norris had 10 Straight defenses of the WBC strap and enough of the right opposition to place him at the top.


Tommy just didn't stay in one division long enough.

Don't think you can look past Calzaghe at SMW.


Holyfield at cruiser.

This is about so much more than just length of reign, Norris has name but busted names.

Calzaghe only had those three (was it?) lineal defences. WBO doesn't count (even as an alphabet belt).

There's not much else. Benn, Kessler and Liles had good alphabet runs. Jones dethroned Toney and looked unbeatable through six alphabet defences.

It's not cut and dried.

Informed was the wrong word Haz, in the early days of the junior divisions it's hard to gauge how seriously they were taken.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Informed was the wrong word Haz, in the early days of the junior divisions it's hard to gauge how seriously they were taken.

Irrelevant here. I'm not looking for the best fighters who ever fought there (or who could have). Just who had the best title reign.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:This is about so much more than just length of reign, Norris has name but busted names.

It's hard to argue with 10 defenses between 1990 and 1993. Taylor had only been beaten once and that was by JCC at that stage. Mugabi was still live.

There's enough there for me.

hazharrison wrote:Calzaghe only had those three (was it?) lineal defences. WBO doesn't count (even as an alphabet belt).

There's not much else. Benn, Kessler and Liles had good alphabet runs. Jones dethroned Toney and looked unbeatable through six alphabet defences.

It's not cut and dried.

There's a lot of what if's with Calzaghe alright.

The WBO was a better belt when Joe had it compared to when Benn/Eubank/Collins were kicking it about.

Calzaghe fought a still live Hopkins and a Top 10 ATG SMW in Kessler who he beat in a brilliant performance.

Calzaghe just stayed at the weight so long I don't think he can be looked past. Also gave up the belt unbeaten.