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?

Scottrf wrote:

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.

course you can, kessler was clearly the man to beat to be proven number 1 in the division and ward did it, they were saying that about kessler when calzaghe fought him!!.

He wasn't clearly the man to beat at all, he was in exactly the position as Froch, a belt holder with a claim to number one. I can retrospectively say Mayweather needed to beat Marquez to be the man at welterweight because he went on to beat Pacquiao.

The whole point of the super six was to determine the best fighter in the division, it was far from a clear cut thing.

Well, Bute was #1 in Boxing Monthly rankings.

might have just been me then that thought ward was clear and away the number 1 fighter at SMW during the super six then, im not buying that ward wasn't considered the number 1 after the way he dealt with kessler

You weren't, but thinking it is different from it being undisputed. If him and Kessler were clear #1 and #2, wouldn't it have been for the Ring belt? Boxing Monthly and The Ring both had Bute #1.

Scottrf wrote:You weren't, but thinking it is different from it being undisputed. If him and Kessler were clear #1 and #2, wouldn't it have been for the Ring belt? Boxing Monthly and The Ring both had Bute #1.

ha what do they know!   

That's correct. Ward was only a titlist until he dealt with Froch (to become champion).

Got to agree with the general consensus re Ward and his status on here. Personally I was never in doubt that Calzaghe would have beaten Ottke had the fight happened but he ceetainly was not considered the man at his weight during the period they were both active due to their failure to decide things in the ring.

Who the light middle going to be?


Anybody got a better shout than Norris.

I would still go with McCallum.

Jackson, Curry, Mccrory, Braxton and Minchillo.

Strongback wrote:Who the light middle going to be?


Anybody got a better shout than Norris.

Norris, Hearns or McCallum but I can't split them -- totally stumped.

Super feather looks to be between Arguello and Mayweather.

Norris had two reigns so I'll include both here and compare against Hearns and McCallum (let's see if that helps):

Norris (1990-1993)

Mugabi (WBC)
Jacquot
Leonard
Curry
Lally
Castro
Daniels
Taylor
Blocker
Waters
Gatti

Norris (1995-1997)

Santana (WBC)
Gonzalez
Vaden (Lineal)
Vado
Pettaway
Rios
Rupa

Hearns (1982-86)

Benitez (WBC/Lineal)
Minchillo
Duran
Hutchings
Medal

McCallum (1984-88)

Mannion (WBA)
Minchillo
Braxton
Jackson
Skouma
McCrory
Curry

This doesn't have any bearing just something I read yesterday, Ray Leonard was actually favorite going into the Norris fight.


The title reign criteria is tough on McCallum as he had to wait for his shot. Like Hearns I think he just didn't hang around long enough when he was champ.


It's a tight one. I will say the majority of Norris' 10 defences were against current, past or future world champions.


Looking back this division really was incredible in the 1980's and 90's

Strongback wrote:This doesn't have any bearing just something I read yesterday, Ray Leonard was actually favorite going into the Norris fight.


The title reign criteria is tough on McCallum as he had to wait for his shot.  Like Hearns I think he just didn't hang around long enough when he was champ.


It's a tight one.  I will say the majority of Norris' 10 defences were against current, past or future world champions.


Looking back this division really was incredible in the 1980's and 90's

Yep -- Leonard hand picked him (he almost went with Nigel Benn at middleweight). Backfired just a tad. Leonard bought the rights to the video by all accounts in a bid to eradicate it.

Norris was a beautiful boxer to watch and I for one am surprised Leonard was favorite coming off a "Loss" to Hearns.......

Norris was unfortunately pretty much like Lewis............Catching quality fighters on the way down.....

But his sharp, crisp combinations, sppeed and footwork were exceptional.........Especially in the Curry and Quincy Taylor fights.......

Seemed to slum it at the end.......Remember the shockers against Brown, Waters and the scamming Santana......

Could have beaten Mccallum

Who was the best of them all at 154......

I won't have McCallum as favorite to beat Hearns at 154. 154 was made for Tommy. He could have stayed there forever and never lost.

I think it's a pick em, if anyone could take Hearns power at 154lbs it would be McCallum and with his body punching he could slow him down enough to take the fight late. Over 15 rounds I can see a McCallum stoppage win any time after the 12th.

I used to think that McCallum would eventually break Hearns down with his body punching to force a late, late stoppage while behind on the cards, but the more time passes the more I find myself going with Tommy via decision.

McCallum just hated fighting awkward, rangy boxers. With Hearns, we always kind of assume that his ego and lack on concentration proves his undoing eventually in these kind of hypothetical match ups, but at 154 he did show that he could stick to a gameplan and not worry about going for the knockout if it wasn't coming (Benitez). McCallum, the Curry fight aside, wasn't a single punch knockout artist so I think Tommy is going to have to get very sloppy for McCallum to win this. It'd probably happen if they fought often enough, but I tend to think now that the percentage call is for Hearns to box his way to a decision. Tommy's legs were a bit sturdier at Light-Middle, so while Mike's constant pressuring means he'd be glad to hear the final bell, Hearns would hang on to win on the cards.

Hearns hit hard enough to stop even as iron-chinned a fighter as McCallum, particularly at Light-Middle, so can't fully rule out that scenario, either.

Hearns all the way

That's one way to look at it Chris but on the flip side McCallum possesses all the attributes that Hearns hates too. In an ideal fight and performing to his optimum he wins a decision but I do think his 154lb exploits are ever so slightly overplayed, I wouldn't consider him to have faced a puncher at the weight. Hearns I would say was at his boxing best but was less explosive than he was at welterweight and while McCallum doesn't have explosive power he hits hard enough to trouble Hearns.

We're not a million miles apart then, really. Tommy on the cards if he's in absolute top form. If he's not (and I don't mean if he has a shocker, as even 90 per cent full capacity isn't guaranteed to be enough against McCallum), then Mike was the man at 154 to take advantage. I guess what settles in my head is that, against Benitez, Tommy produced a showing which I'm confident would have beaten the best version possible of McCallum. Mike, for his part, definitely showed some performances which would have beaten a sub-par Hearns, or a Hearns who had one of his concentration lapses, but I'm not quite sure he gave a showing which could have beaten the Tommy who beat Wilfred.

Would have been a beautiful, beautiful fight, but if both men are at their very best I can see Tommy just about managing to do what McCrory looked as if he might do for about six rounds and keeping McCallum on the outside enough to make his superior jab, movement and speed count.

Thing is, McCallum arguably did himself no favours with how he conducted himself right after stopping Milton. That was his first fight, I believe, since switching over to Main Events and Duva / Benton since leaving the training and management of Steward, and as fate would have it he was against one of his former Kronk fighters in McCrory. Hearns was ringside, too, ostensibly to cheer on his gym mate but also, you'd think, to possibly size McCallum up as a future opponent (Hearns could still make 160 by 1987, as you'll know, and McCallum was thinking about moving up). McCallum had been shouting to anyone who'd listen that he wanted to have it with Tommy as a way of getting back at Steward.

Once the McCrory fight had been stopped, McCallum ran right across the ring and up to Steward's face, shouting "and STILL the champ, Emmanuel!" Steward, naturally, was said to be enraged by this, feeling that it was a classless thing for McCallum to do considering that he'd been trying to make his way over to his beaten fighter who was in pretty bad shape at the time (McCrory, through rounds eight, nine and ten, had been taking an absolute hammering), and also considering that he'd refrained from publicly commenting on the ins and outs of his split with McCallum - and apparently, from that moment onwards, Steward swore that he'd never allow Hearns to sign for the McCallum fight, as he wasn't going to give Mike the huge pay day and attention he so craved after behaving like that.

In fairness to McCallum, I don't think he'd have ever meant to have come across as being malicious or disrespectful to Steward, and his blood would have been right up after scoring such a good win in what was his most high-profile fight to date, but Steward took it to heart, and that was that. Might have been so different if Mike had just kept it zipped!

I understand that view Chris, it's the one fantasy fight i've never felt comfortable of predicting, Hearns was magnificent against Benitez but other than the Hope knockout he was never a big puncher. I can see your outcome happening more often than not but think McCallum has a very real chance too.

I'm thinking Norris at 154 and Elorde at 130.

Elorde no, it's only really between Arguello and Mayweather, the division lacked recognition back then.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Elorde no, it's only really between Arguello and Mayweather, the division lacked recognition back then.

Seven years (1960-67) and ten defences as the man. I think that trumps the others.

Flash Elorde for the name alone

I personally don't when you consider they both fought better opposition in a more recognised division. Seems to me you're trying to be a bit smart with the pick of Elorde when he isn't in contention, about 4th or 5th.

I think he's a viable pick. Arguello was an alphabet champ (for a much shorter period). Mayweather wasn't really the boss until he stopped Corrales.

Can't agree with that I'm afraid, you're too hung up on linear titles, Arguello and Mayweather have beaten the best opposition that for me is the primary factor.

It wasn't for me (as per criteria set out at the beginning).

Well Elorde over Arguello and Mayweather and quality of opposition has to be a factor or it's just a list of the longest serving champions.

It's another tough one but I'm going with Mayweather based on a combination of longevity, quality of opposition, number of beaten titlists and style of victory.


Floyd beating Hernandez to take the title was an excellent win better than many lineal wins by others.


(Que hammer picking Arguello)

I think I'm:

Elorde
Mayweather
Arguello

I've said all along that I have Arguello top of the tree in this one, I fail to see any reason why Elorde is your number one. Numerous defences against weak opposition for a title that was barely recognised.

hazharrison wrote:That's correct. Ward was only a titlist until he dealt with Froch (to become champion).

Agree with this. Ward was the titlist with the best claim when he beat Kesslar, but he wasn't the champion until he beat Froch.

The whole reign thing becomes much more difficult to do in the multi-belt eras. It seems to me that posters here (rightfully I think) don't count beltholders as having a reign i.e. even a strong beltholder like Froch has no reign....and certainly not a weak beltholder likeCleverly, or Shumenov, etc, etc. So really you've got to come up with a fair way of deciding when someone becomes 'the man'. Ring belt champions are a useful barometer here because full unifications are so rare - and even true champions like Ward get belts stripped.

So really for the strat of a reign you're looking for:

a) someone to beat an opponent who is clearly the man (an example is Stevenson beating Dawson)

b) When the belt has become fragmented due to the man giving it up then whovever emerges from the pack (an example would be Ward emerging by beating Kesslar and Froch)

No wonder casual fans get confused about who the 'world champions' are.

Boxtthis wrote:

hazharrison wrote:That's correct. Ward was only a titlist until he dealt with Froch (to become champion).

Agree with this. Ward was the titlist with the best claim when he beat Kesslar, but he wasn't the champion until he beat Froch.

The whole reign thing becomes much more difficult to do in the multi-belt eras. It seems to me that posters here (rightfully I think) don't count beltholders as having a reign i.e. even a strong beltholder like Froch has no reign....and certainly not a weak beltholder likeCleverly, or Shumenov, etc, etc. So really you've got to come up with a fair way of deciding when someone becomes 'the man'. Ring belt champions are a useful barometer here because full unifications are so rare - and even true champions like Ward get belts stripped.

So really for the strat of a reign you're looking for:

a) someone to beat an opponent who is clearly the man (an example is Stevenson beating Dawson)

b) When the belt has become fragmented due to the man giving it up then whovever emerges from the pack (an example would be Ward emerging by beating Kesslar and Froch)

No wonder casual fans get confused about who the 'world champions' are.

Even Ring championships have lost their lustre (the panel of experts that once compiled their rankings is no more -- they're solely completed by Chuck Giampa). They've also loosened their championship criteria to such an extent that they've lost the entire point of their original purpose and mission.

The TBRB are the best we have right now but they're barely known (and can't make or force matches in the manner a WBC could).

hazharrison wrote:

Boxtthis wrote:

hazharrison wrote:That's correct. Ward was only a titlist until he dealt with Froch (to become champion).

Agree with this. Ward was the titlist with the best claim when he beat Kesslar, but he wasn't the champion until he beat Froch.

The whole reign thing becomes much more difficult to do in the multi-belt eras. It seems to me that posters here (rightfully I think) don't count beltholders as having a reign i.e. even a strong beltholder like Froch has no reign....and certainly not a weak beltholder likeCleverly, or Shumenov, etc, etc. So really you've got to come up with a fair way of deciding when someone becomes 'the man'. Ring belt champions are a useful barometer here because full unifications are so rare - and even true champions like Ward get belts stripped.

So really for the strat of a reign you're looking for:

a) someone to beat an opponent who is clearly the man (an example is Stevenson beating Dawson)

b) When the belt has become fragmented due to the man giving it up then whovever emerges from the pack (an example would be Ward emerging by beating Kesslar and Froch)

No wonder casual fans get confused about who the 'world champions' are.

Even Ring championships have lost their lustre (the panel of experts that once compiled their rankings is no more -- they're solely completed by Chuck Giampa). They've also loosened their championship criteria to such an extent that they've lost the entire point of their original purpose and mission.

The TBRB are the best we have right now but they're barely known (and can't make or force matches in the manner a WBC could).

Agreed. The Ring ratings system has went clearly downhill. But, the 'reign' debate is pretty much impossible to have properly without pinning down a definition of when a reign starts.

Even before they diluted them the ring system was flawed, as any system which cannot enforce fights will always be. Without wishing to reopen the debate one only has to look at the Hatton Witter situation. Hatton just made a decision, based on personality, that he was never going to face the second ranked fighter in his division with no impact whatsoever on his status. Surely that cannot really be what rankings are all about.

Rowley wrote:Even before they diluted them the ring system was flawed, as any system which cannot enforce fights will always be. Without wishing to reopen the debate one only has to look at the Hatton Witter situation. Hatton just made a decision, based on personality, that he was never going to face the second ranked fighter in his division with no impact whatsoever on his status. Surely that cannot really be what rankings are all about.

Again, I agree. The politics of boxing have made it very, very difficult to rank fighters in a consistent way. I can't see that ever changing. Had a look at the TBRB rankings and they're the best I've seen in a while. You can see in the comments at the bottom of their page that they are still refining policies as they go, simply because of the complications faced when boxers do things like a) refuse to face an opponent, b) don't get to face someone because of a promoter feud, c) be inactive for long periods, d) skip around weight classes rather than establish their dominance in the one they're in, e) fight at catchweights , etc, etc, etc, etc

Still, as I said, if you're going to have a debate about longest reigns, it's probably best that someone comes up with a stab at a definition of when a championship reign starts. The Ring, and more so TBRB (at least its principles - it doesn't have the history), are certainly more useful barometers than the sanctioning body rankings.

Can't see how Elorde's reign at 130 could be considered better than Chavez's or Nelson's, personally, never mind Alexis' and Floyd's.

As I said earlier, Super-Feather had been effectively dormant for years before Elorde came along. Arguello and Mayweather's opposition during their runs at the weight were good enough to cement them as pound for pound fighters, whereas Elorde was never really at that same level, as shown when he went up to challenge Ortiz for the Lightweight title and barely won a single round in two cracks. Puts Elorde in to perspective a little, and even more so his opposition. 130 was a bit of a safe haven between an outstanding Featherweight division at the time (Ramos, Saldivar, Winstone etc) and one of the great Lightweight champions in Ortiz.

In fact, Elorde's best career wins (Saddler and Laguna) came in non-title fights.

88Chris05 wrote:Can't see how Elorde's reign at 130 could be considered better than Chavez's or Nelson's, personally, never mind Alexis' and Floyd's.

As I said earlier, Super-Feather had been effectively dormant for years before Elorde came along. Arguello and Mayweather's opposition during their runs at the weight were good enough to cement them as pound for pound fighters, whereas Elorde was never really at that same level, as shown when he went up to challenge Ortiz for the Lightweight title and barely won a single round in two cracks. Puts Elorde in to perspective a little, and even more so his opposition. 130 was a bit of a safe haven between an outstanding Featherweight division at the time (Ramos, Saldivar, Winstone etc) and one of the great Lightweight champions in Ortiz.

In fact, Elorde's best career wins (Saddler and Laguna) came in non-title fights.

He was more dominant than the others and for longer.

No he wasn't Haz, who did he beat?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:No he wasn't Haz, who did he beat?

It's all on Box Rec. Remember: this isn't about who the best fighter was, or who scored the biggest win.

How can it not be, you have Moore at light heavyweight when Foster has more successful defences. You then have Armstrong at welterweight when Napoles ruled for longer but fewer defences.

I'm aware it's on Boxrec which is why I can't see how it's a great reign.

Moore reigned for longer (10 years) and fought better men.
 
Maybe the welterweight one is up for debate -- that's the first case anyone has made against Armstrong. Armstrong has 19 or 20 defences over two years against Napoles' 10 over four.

Moore defended his title a fair few times less than Moore, you are using different criteria for different boxers.

It isn't an exact science. It's about weighing up who ticks the most boxes (based on length of reign, quality of title, number of defences and lastly, quality of opposition).

This is where you lose me because you have said numerous times that quality of opposition doesn't matter because Elorde simply shouldn't be considered for Super Featherweight.

Mayweather beat the number one super featherweight in the world in Hernandez and was from that moment on the lineal champion, he defended that title 8 times against superior opposition to Elorde. So explain what criteria you are using to have him first because I don't understand.

Elorde was champion (lineal) between 1960-67 (7 years), defending the championship 10 times.

Mayweather was a titlist (I understand his lineal claim, however, at the time he vied with Corrales as the best at the weight -- until he demolished him) between 1998-2002 and made 8 defenses.

Elorde has him trumped in terms of longevity, defenses and quality of title.

He was the lineal champion, it wasn't a claim, he beat the man who beat the man it's really that simple. Length of time isn't a criteria for me, the number of defences are a criteria.

Mayweather has 8 lineal defences having beaten a very good boxer in Hernandez, with wins over Chavez, Manfredy and Coralles compare that to Elorde and he's clearly ahead in every criteria but number of defences.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:He was the lineal champion, it wasn't a claim, he beat the man who beat the man it's really that simple. Length of time isn't a criteria for me, the number of defences are a criteria.

Mayweather has 8 lineal defences having beaten a very good boxer in Hernandez, with wins over Chavez, Manfredy and Coralles compare that to Elorde and he's clearly ahead in every criteria but number of defences.

Or length of reign (as well as how his reign was viewed at he time). Mayweather wasn't viewed as the undisputed guy at the time (until he wiped out Corrales). What makes you so sure that the likes of Manfredy and Chavez were any better than Gomes and Kosaka?