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?

Hopkins is irrelevant here.

Mugabi and Taylor were both damaged goods, his record looks impressive but when you dig deeper it's less impressive.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Hopkins is irrelevant here.

Mugabi and Taylor were both damaged goods, his record looks impressive but when you dig deeper it's less impressive.

Taylor had one loss. Mugabi had two. Neither was shot before they met Norris.


The wins again Sugar Ray and Curry don't impress.

As for Calzaghi who's better?

Taylor was 2 divisions above his best weight and broken by Chavez.

Strongback wrote:

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.

Hopkins was at light heavyweight

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Taylor was 2 divisions above his best weight and broken by Chavez.

Taylor was welterweight world champion and considered the best welterweight on the planet when he fought Norrus.

He was not broken. Country to popular belief these days one loss does not break a fighter.

Light-Middleweight is tricky. If by 'reign' you don't count the fights in which a fighter won their title, but rather only their subsequent defences of it, then I guess you'd have to go with McCallum. If you count the fight in which a fighter lifted the belts, however, then Tommy's win over Benitez gives him the edge. Wilfred was in the form of his life at 154. Also worth noting that, for all intents and purposes, Hearns' demolition of Duran would have been a unification fight had it not been for the WBA stripping Duran for failing to meet McCallum, who was really just another contender in 1984.

Difficult to pin down how good Norris' reign was compared to these two. He held his title for longer and, on paper, has the best names going. The downsides are that he had his title beaten out of his hands (Mike and Tommy never did) and that names such as Leonard, Taylor (the Glenwood Brown fight, though exciting, was a sure-fire sign that something was wrong with Meldrick) and Curry were really just faded imitations of their old selves.

Looked a million dollars in some of his defences, none more so than against Castro where he dazzled him with a mix of speed and an array of shots that not too many could call upon in the sport at that time, but the above factors mean that Norris has to settle for bronze medal contention, for me. If you look at it objectively, his run of defences in terms of opposition weren't that much greater than Vasquez's, who flossed the WBA belt while Norris was representing the WBC. Vasquez's wins over Davis and an unbeaten Winky were pretty impressive.

Going back to Super-Feather, I don't particularly think that Elorde has much of a claim and I think much of his appeal lies in the fact that he more or less saved the division from extinction - it had been dormant for years before he became champion.

Arguello and Mayweather are the standouts there, with Zoomy and Chavez contesting third spot, I'd say. Both of them made a similar amount of defences to Alexis and Floyd, maybe even one more apiece I believe, but Chavez struggled in a few of his (I thought La Porte beat him, albeit it was super close and a draw wouldn't have been unfair at all) and he was some way off his best against Lockridge, too. Nelson got an absolute gift against Fenech, and was usurped by Leija who, as their third fight showed, was punching above his weight against an all-time great such as Zoomy in the first place. To make up for that, his thrashing of Fenech in the rematch was arguably the performance of the nineties and his level of opposition was definitely a rung or two higher than what 'Flash' was facing at 130 lb.

The manner of his defeat does break a fighter, you can say he only lost once but I saw enough to suggest he was broken goods.

hazharrison wrote:

Strongback wrote:

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.

Hopkins was at light heavyweight

I over egged it with Hopkins alright.


Keeping it to SMW:


Eubank SMW champ
Reid SMW champ
Woodhall SMW champ
Mitchell SMW world champ
Brewer SMW world champ
Bika SMW world champ
Lacy SMW world champ undefeated SMW champ
Kessler SMW world champ undefeated SMW champ



I know Calzaghe isn't everyone's cuppa. Looking at it objectively though he has to have the best reign because he hung around at the weight for so long and was unbeaten against most of the good operators. The better fights didn't happen and the best fighters didn't stay at the weight long enough.

Don't see how Taylor could have been the best Welter on the planet when he fought Norris, Strongback. At best, he was merely a contender for that title. In fact, by early 1992, when Meldrick fought Norris, the closest thing to a lineal or generally accepted champion at 147 was McGirt, who'd put on a clinic against Brown, who'd unified his IBF belt with Blocker's WBC one on the Tyson-Ruddock undercard. Blocker had beaten Starling for that title, and Starling had produced an absolutely beautiful performance to win that belt from Honeyghan who, that brief but avenged hiccup against Vaca aside, had been the man by proxy at Welterweight since his stunning win over Curry.

But anyway, even leaving that aside, there's enough evidence to show that Meldrick was not the same fighter as he'd once been by the time Norris got his hands on him. He'd looked good against Davis, I thought. Very good, in fact. Chavez didn't completely ruin him on March 17, 1990, I agree there. But it was obvious that his edge had been blunted all the same. As I said earlier, look at the Glenwood Brown fight (be sure you can make out which fighter is which, mind you, as they looked almost exactly the bleedin' same, making it a hard one to judge!). Excellent, exciting fight, but would a peak Taylor have had such a rotten time of it against someone like Brown a couple of years previously? Not for me he wouldn't.

Besides, Taylor just wasn't a Light-Middleweight, catchweight or no. Sticking him in there with Norris was a very, very odd decision by Main Events, to say the least. Fair play to Terry, of course. He did what was asked of him and beat Taylor to a pulp. But any 154 lb champion in the elite kind of bracket which Norris belonged to at that time would have done the same, really.

Strongy you really aren't taking into account the ability of the fighters when they're fought. Bika is as much a world champion as Quigg is, I wouldn't argue too much with Calzaghe but don't think we under estimate the quality Ward has beaten.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The manner of his defeat does break a fighter, you can say he only lost once but I saw enough to suggest he was broken goods.

The Ring have Taylor as their No.1 welterweight for 1991. Taylor was far from completely washed up.

Norris finished what was left of Taylor.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Strongy you really aren't taking into account the ability of the fighters when they're fought. Bika is as much a world champion as Quigg is, I wouldn't argue too much with Calzaghe but don't think we under estimate the quality Ward has beaten.

Ward will be No.1 if he keeps fighting I'm not doubting that. I was only looking at retired fighters.

88Chris05 wrote:Don't see how Taylor could have been the best Welter on the planet when he fought Norris, Strongback. At best, he was merely a contender for that title. In fact, by early 1992, when Meldrick fought Norris, the closest thing to a lineal or generally accepted champion at 147 was McGirt, who'd put on a clinic against Brown, who'd unified his IBF belt with Blocker's WBC one on the Tyson-Ruddock undercard. Blocker had beaten Starling for that title, and Starling had produced an absolutely beautiful performance to win that belt from Honeyghan who, that brief but avenged hiccup against Vaca aside, had been the man by proxy at Welterweight since his stunning win over Curry.

But anyway, even leaving that aside, there's enough evidence to show that Meldrick was not the same fighter as he'd once been by the time Norris got his hands on him. He'd looked good against Davis, I thought. Very good, in fact. Chavez didn't completely ruin him on March 17, 1990, I agree there. But it was obvious that his edge had been blunted all the same. As I said earlier, look at the Glenwood Brown fight (be sure you can make out which fighter is which, mind you, as they looked almost exactly the bleedin' same, making it a hard one to judge!). Excellent, exciting fight, but would a peak Taylor have had such a rotten time of it against someone like Brown a couple of years previously? Not for me he wouldn't.

Besides, Taylor just wasn't a Light-Middleweight, catchweight or no. Sticking him in there with Norris was a very, very odd decision by Main Events, to say the least. Fair play to Terry, of course. He did what was asked of him and beat Taylor to a pulp. But any 154 lb champion in the elite kind of bracket which Norris belonged to at that time would have done the same, really.

Although JCC hit Taylor with some hurtful punches I can't help feel that if he had lasted the 2 seconds Taylor's life would have been a lot different. He was only 23 y.o. and could recover physically from the damage. Taylor's problems were largely psychological. If he beats JCC he's the P4P No.1 and it's onwards and upwards. Taylor still had his physical gifts when he met Norris so the win has validity in the context of who had the greatest light welterweight reign ever. Norris did a number on a still young but psychologically damaged fighter coming up from welter as a World Champion. To me the win contributes to Norris's legacy even if there are some question marks.

I tend to fall on the other side of the fence really, Strongy. Even if Taylor had made those final two seconds, I think his career would have taken a relatively similar path, albeit the decline might not have been so sudden and steep. I said as much in an article I wrote on Meldrick a few weeks back.

I don't think Taylor's confidence was the real problem post-Chavez, even if that fight did leave some mental demons (it would be impossible for it not to have done, really). He still had that swagger when he fought Davis, that extra little something which made him stand out from the rest. Still had the withering body attack, that attitude of being happy to take one shot in order to land three of four of his own quicksilver ones and, as he always had, an absolutely massive amount of heart and bottle. Truly, Taylor was one of the gutsiest fighters going.

I just don't think he had that propensity to soak up massive punishment without it taking a notable toll on him. Some fights (La Motta, Basilio etc, or guys like Froch from the modern game) are fortunate enough to be blessed with that. Chavez had it too, as it goes. But some, such as Meldrick, Benitez etc, just seem to be that little more easily broken, and at a younger age, too. Appreciate that there were additional factors in both cases, but you get my drift. There can be a whole manner of reasons for it, but some fighters just have bodies and brains which break down with accumulative punishment a little easier than others.

Taylor's style and the fact that he didn't have a great frame for travelling up through the weights meant that he was always going to have quite a punishing time of it, for me. We'll never know for sure, but even if he'd have secured what would have been an absolutely brilliant win over Chavez, I still believe we'd be looking back at him today as a great star who shone relatively briefly.

Taylor did spar very hard and many have said he overdid it. He also had the Phily mentality of brawling so failed to use his advantages. All these things were factors I'm sure.

In the context of a fighters reign I see Taylor as a win that has some value for Norris. Curry and SRL were complete shells while Taylor could still compete.

LMW is a tough division to pick a champ. My view is Norris, while not the most talented fighter ever to fight at the weight, put in 10 defenses which is more than others and he has credible wins. A blend of longevity and wins. There's no easy answer.

Which Norris reign, though? First or second?

Strongback wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Strongback wrote:

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.

Hopkins was at light heavyweight

I over egged it with Hopkins alright.


Keeping it to SMW:


Eubank SMW champ
Reid SMW champ
Woodhall SMW champ
Mitchell SMW world champ
Brewer SMW world champ
Bika SMW world champ
Lacy SMW world champ undefeated SMW champ
Kessler SMW world champ undefeated SMW champ



I know Calzaghe isn't everyone's cuppa. Looking at it objectively though he has to have the best reign because he hung around at the weight for so long and was unbeaten against most of the good operators. The better fights didn't happen and the best fighters didn't stay at the weight long enough.

Calzaghe's reign reads:

Lacy (wins title)
Bika
Manfredo
Kessler

This is my point Haz with the junior divisions, there has always been a proliferation of titles so not sure you can see things purely in terms of the lineal title. Calzaghe, Ward and possibly Jones are the only lineal champions.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:This is my point Haz with the junior divisions, there has always been a proliferation of titles so not sure you can see things purely in terms of the lineal title. Calzaghe, Ward and possibly Jones are the only lineal champions.

I'm including the three major alphabet belts - just not WBO. Hypocritical I know (they're all as bad as each other but need to draw a line or we'll have Hatton's WBU reign in there).

Calzaghe and the WBO were poor relations at the time and more lowly regarded.

Not sure I can go along with that when Calzaghe was regarded as the best 168lber throughout most of his reign, his biggest rival was Ottke. De La Hoya winning two WBO titles in the mid 90's suggests the title wasn't as lowly regarded as you think, if it's good enough for the golden boy and Hearns then it's certainly good enough for Calzaghe.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Not sure I can go along with that when Calzaghe was regarded as the best 168lber throughout most of his reign, his biggest rival was Ottke. De La Hoya winning two WBO titles in the mid 90's suggests the title wasn't as lowly regarded as you think, if it's good enough for the golden boy and Hearns then it's certainly good enough for Calzaghe.

I lived through it - he was just another top ten contender with a belt. He was the underdog against Lacy.

WBO doesn't count here.

I too lived through it Haz and know that the WBO was considered a major belt, it was the moment Hearns claimed it and that Calzaghe was rated as the best in the division.

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Not sure I can go along with that when Calzaghe was regarded as the best 168lber throughout most of his reign, his biggest rival was Ottke. De La Hoya winning two WBO titles in the mid 90's suggests the title wasn't as lowly regarded as you think, if it's good enough for the golden boy and Hearns then it's certainly good enough for Calzaghe.

I lived through it - he was just another top ten contender with a belt. He was the underdog against Lacy.

WBO doesn't count here.

 


Don't like Joe then?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I too lived through it Haz and know that the WBO was considered a major belt, it was the moment Hearns claimed it and that Calzaghe was rated as the best in the division.

That simply isn't correct. Liles and then Ottke ranked above him (with Ring Magazine) for years.

If any fighters helped legitimise the WBO it was Eubank and Hamed rather than Hearns. Still - doesn't count for this exercise.

hazharrison wrote:Which Norris reign, though? First or second?

Missed that earlier. 1900-1993.

Strongback wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Not sure I can go along with that when Calzaghe was regarded as the best 168lber throughout most of his reign, his biggest rival was Ottke. De La Hoya winning two WBO titles in the mid 90's suggests the title wasn't as lowly regarded as you think, if it's good enough for the golden boy and Hearns then it's certainly good enough for Calzaghe.

I lived through it - he was just another top ten contender with a belt. He was the underdog against Lacy.

WBO doesn't count here.

 


Don't like Joe then?

No axe to grind at all. He still possibly takes it anyway.

Strongback wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Which Norris reign, though? First or second?

Missed that earlier.  1900-1993.

That is one HELL of a reign!

Calzaghe was rated number one for 6 years from 2002 onwards and the WBO counts if I wish it to in my opinion, you can't pick and choose what counts and what doesn't.

hazharrison wrote:

Strongback wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Which Norris reign, though? First or second?

Missed that earlier.  1900-1993.

That is one HELL of a reign!

 


1990-93

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Calzaghe was rated number one for 6 years from 2002 onwards and the WBO counts if I wish it to in my opinion, you can't pick and choose what counts and what doesn't.

It doesn't count for the purposes of this thread.

If you don't want to include for yourself then that's fair enough but I shall be.

Don't see any reason why the WBO belt should be discarded when weighing up the 168 pounders, really. Sure, that particular organisation didn't have (and still doesn't have, really) the reputation that the other bodies did / do, but at the end of the day it's fighters who make belts for the most part, not the other way round.

Ottke's IBF belt, from the outset, may have been a 'bigger' title than Calzaghe's WBO one, but were the men he defended it against, on the whole, any better than the men who Calzaghe amassed his defences against? Did he prove any more than Calzaghe did in the furnace of all those IBF defences? I'd say 'no' to both questions.

That said, I don't think you could really call Calzaghe the division's best until 2006 when he thrashed Lacy, really. Before that, he didn't really have any wins on his record to distinguish him from the chasing pack. I think the only way you could really deduce that Calzaghe was the top man at 168 before that point is to take in to account what he did after that point, but that's slightly shaky ground in some ways. Personally, I view Super-Middleweight, for about eight or nine years after Jones left it, to basically be a division in which most of the top operators were fairly evenly matched and in which nobody really did any more than the next man to make their claims as the top dog particularly strong.

Ottke getting more than one gift for me is the reason I see Calzaghe as the divisions number one Chris, there was also Beyer but he's in the same position.

Maybe Jones takes it?

Ottke was never lineal champ. He never unified the division.

The very high possibility that Calzaghe would have battered the tar out of Ottke may be hypothetical but we do have eyes in our head.

Strongback wrote:Ottke was never lineal champ.  He never unified the division.

The very high possibility that Calzaghe would have battered the tar out of Ottke may be hypothetical but we do have eyes in our head.

its impossible to batter otkke just ask reid, if you hit him you get told off by the ref

hazharrison wrote:Maybe Jones takes it?

Jones Jr has 5 defences of the IBF belt. Toney is obviously the standout win. After that probably Lucas.

Shows how weak the division is when this level of reign is up there with the best.


Jones is the best fighter that ever fought SMW but I don't see his reign being better than Calzaghe's who just hung around the weight forever along with Ottke.

for me theres nothing in calzaghes win list to suggest he was the man at the weight until after the lacy fight, not sure you can claim he was THE world champ till after lacy, its the problem alphabet belts pose when considering reigns.

which if were looking after lacy its not the best, ward had a better list than that already with kessler, froch, AA and dawson

Struggle to see how you can go with anyone other than Calzaghe for supermiddle. Jones is for me the best fighter at the weight and in slapping Toney around probably has the best win of all the contenders at the weight but for me his time there is just too brief for him to be a contender.

Prefer Calzaghe over Ottke. Whilst there are similarities to their earlier career Ottke never at any point established himself as the man at the weight and whilst Joe took longer than would have been ideal to do it Joe most certainly did. Also Joe never needed to rely on the kindness of referees or judges to retain his 0 which Ottke did on more than one occasion.

However don’t think Ward should be ruled out of the mix in this. Has definitely established himself as the man at the weight and the fact he did not take eight years to do so is impressive. Also think a list of victims that includes Kessler, Froch, Bika and Abraham pretty much all back to back deserves a lot of respect, particularly as pretty much none of them have even looked like upsetting the apple cart. Can see the arguments for either guy but at supermiddle it has to be between Joe and Ward for me.

Rowley wrote:Struggle to see how you can go with anyone other than Calzaghe  for supermiddle. Jones is for me the best fighter at the weight and in slapping Toney around probably has the best win of all the contenders at the weight but for me his time there is just too brief for him to be a contender.

Prefer Calzaghe over Ottke. Whilst there are similarities to their earlier career Ottke never at any point established himself as the man at the weight and whilst Joe took longer than would have been ideal to do it Joe most certainly did. Also Joe never needed to rely on the kindness of referees or judges to retain his 0 which Ottke did on more than one occasion.

However don’t think Ward should be ruled out of the mix in this. Has definitely established himself as the man at the weight and the fact he did not take eight years to do so is impressive. Also think a list of victims that includes Kessler, Froch, Bika and Abraham pretty much all back to back deserves a lot of respect, particularly as pretty much none of them have even looked like upsetting the apple cart. Can see the arguments for either guy but at supermiddle it has to be between Joe and Ward for me.

Ward's a great shout:

Kessler (WBA)
Green
Bika
Abraham
Froch (takes lineal crown)
Dawson

And he's still going -- so if it isn't him, it likely soon will be. I think I'd be inclined to go with him.

The only factor with Ward is that his title was completely disputed until he beat Froch. So if we're not giving Calzaghe credit for fights before Lacy than Ward has a reign of 2 fights.

Scottrf wrote:The only factor with Ward is that his title was completely disputed until he beat Froch. So if we're not giving Calzaghe credit for fights before Lacy than Ward has a reign of 2 fights.

For the purposes of this thread, I was willing to go with the traditional man three alphabets and lineal crowns. Does anyone even care that Robert Stieglitz has held the WBO belt throughout the entire Super Six (and subsequent aftermath)?

All alphabet belts are a scourge but for the purposes of this bit of fluff it's easier to draw a line somewhere.

Fair enough, I don't think the WBO is significantly worse at this stage though, have had some of the best champions in recent history and less of the Super WBA title, WBC Silver Belt nonsense.

Scottrf wrote:The only factor with Ward is that his title was completely disputed until he beat Froch. So if we're not giving Calzaghe credit for fights before Lacy than Ward has a reign of 2 fights.

i thought kessler was more of the man he needed to beat at the time seeing though he went on to beat froch after the loss to ward, certainly considered ward the man at the weight with the way he dispatched kessler with such ease and knew full well that froch wouldn't live with him

Kessler was the man when Ward faced him based on what he did afterwards?

It was a disputed division.

Scottrf wrote:Kessler was the man when Ward faced him based on what he did afterwards?

It was a disputed division.

kessler was proven to be the man he needed to beat to be judged number 1 by what happened afterwards, were looking back with hindsight with most peoples careers here and can judge accordingly. don't see why ward misses out its clear he was the division clear number 1 after beating kessler in such emphatic fashion.

did many give froch a chance v ward? i wasn't, hardly disputed division

You don't decide what is a title reign by what happened afterwards.

Calzaghe beat Lacy and Kessler, therefore in hindsight that division wasn't disputed, it makes no sense.

you dont judge how good wins are and what affects they have afterwards? calzaghes win over hopkins was just a win over a old man then?

even if not kessler was still regarded as the fighter at the weight and not froch. froch had only beaten a shot taylor and got lucky against dirrell. good win against a unproven pascal (but were not aloud to look back and see how good a win it was with your logic)

compelling and rich wrote:you dont judge how good wins are and what affects they have afterwards? calzaghes win over hopkins was just a win over a old man then?

even if not kessler was still regarded as the fighter at the weight and not froch. froch had only beaten a shot taylor and got lucky against dirrell. good win against a unproven pascal (but were not aloud to look back and see how good a win it was with your logic)

Except I didn't say any of that. I said you can't decide if it's a title reign based on what happens afterwards.