Greatest Championship Reigns In History By Weight

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?

Heavyweight; Ali
Light Heavyweight; Foster
Middleweight; Monzon
Welterweight; Armstrong
Lightweight; Duran
Featherweight; Pep
Bantamweight; Jofre
Flyweight; Wilde

Can't see how Foster's trumps Moore's? Or Jofre's trumps Ortiz's?

If it's defences then It's a helluva list........

If it's on skill, victories etc............Then Ali is at heavy..........I'll agree with Hammer..

Pep too..........

Super middleweight looks a nightmare.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:If it's defences then It's a helluva list........

If it's on skill, victories etc............Then Ali is at heavy..........I'll agree with Hammer..

Pep too..........

Length of reign (unbroken), number of defences (quality of opposition as the deal breaker). Can't see anyone other than Louis at heavyweight.

And real championships over alphabet belts.

Moore's championship reign isn't all that impressive while Foster was a wrecking machine.

Quality of opposition...............I can see other people If you can't..

Louis had longevity but fought crap. Ali was cut short in his prime but fought and beat guys who would have assaulted Louis before brunch.

Have to agree az..........Foreman and frazier were a bit better than Braddock and baer. Moore always thought Johnson would beat Louis...

guess watching 170 pound Conn giving him problems.........I'd agree.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Moore's championship reign isn't all that impressive while Foster was a wrecking machine.

Moore ruled for 10 years, making 9 defences.
Foster ruled for 6, making 14. Moore probably faced the better competition, though.

Don't think Ali's first run eclipses Joe's. Can't see it.

Well good thing is you don't have to see it..........As with Mayweather above Hagler..

We'll see it for you..

Louis didn't fight anyone as good as Liston. That one win trumps anything on joe's record.

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Moore's championship reign isn't all that impressive while Foster was a wrecking machine.

Moore ruled for 10 years, making 9 defences.
Foster ruled for 6, making 14. Moore probably faced the better competition, though.

I thought it was 7 defences but either way that many defences in 10 years is pretty poor going plus his life and death battle with Durelle pushes him below Foster. Johnson, Olsen and Maxim twice are quality defences but those fights aren't enough to outdo Fosters iron fisted rule.

Liston x2, Patterson, Williams, Folley and Terrell................All beat everybody Louis beat bar walcott......

Who got robbed and was winning the return till he got caught........

I'm not looking at who MIGHT have beaten who: length of reign (championships over titles), number of defences with quality of opposition a tie breaker.

Ali reigned for only three years at a time. Louis clocked up 12 years with 25 defences. No contest (as much as that seems to pain you both).

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Moore's championship reign isn't all that impressive while Foster was a wrecking machine.

Moore ruled for 10 years, making 9 defences.
Foster ruled for 6, making 14. Moore probably faced the better competition, though.

I thought it was 7 defences but either way that many defences in 10 years is pretty poor going plus his life and death battle with Durelle pushes him below Foster. Johnson, Olsen and Maxim twice are quality defences but those fights aren't enough to outdo Fosters iron fisted rule.

Nine. Foster's opposition was relatively poor don't you think?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Well good thing is you don't have to see it..........As with Mayweather above Hagler..

We'll see it for you..

Is there something wrong with you? Seriously? I'm quite worried about you.

The double standard is unreal. Louis fought bums. No 1 contenders but bums nevertheless. The term bum of the month was not coined without reason. Yet Floyd gets pilloried for allegedly fighting sub standard opposition yet he's reigned supreme longer than Louis has.

azania wrote:The double standard is unreal. Louis fought bums. No 1 contenders but bums nevertheless.  The term bum of the month was not coined without reason. Yet Floyd gets pilloried for allegedly fighting sub standard opposition yet he's reigned supreme longer than Louis has.

What has this thread got to do with Floyd? He doesn't figure. Louis holds the distinction of having the greatest championship reign of all time.

This thread is about championship reigns at a single weight. Grateful if you could take the Floyd rubbish elsewhere (there's plenty of threads on him).

The longest but not the greatest. That title has been taken.

azania wrote:The double standard is unreal. Louis fought bums. No 1 contenders but bums nevertheless.  The term bum of the month was not coined without reason. Yet Floyd gets pilloried for allegedly fighting sub standard opposition yet he's reigned supreme longer than Louis has.

You forgot to mention just how pretty he is.

azania wrote:Louis had longevity but fought crap. Ali was cut short in his prime but fought and beat guys who would have assaulted Louis before brunch.

I completely agree. I urge anyone interested in this debate to really look at the record of Louis in comparison to Ali. It isn't even close.

Boxtthis wrote:

azania wrote:Louis had longevity but fought crap. Ali was cut short in his prime but fought and beat guys who would have assaulted Louis before brunch.

I completely agree. I urge anyone interested in this debate to really look at the record of Louis in comparison to Ali. It isn't even close.

You have missed the point of the thread.

Bit trickier than you might think with the Heayvweights, for me. Ali's whole career and two reigns (can't really call his third title that), collectively, definitely trump Louis' overall career for me, but Joe's single title reign was outstanding. Ali was at his best in his first championship run, but his opposition wasn't as good as the fellas he was facing a decade later. The downside of that second reign is that, unlike first time round, he looked awful in some of those fights and ended up being usurped by Neon Leon of all people, albeit Ali was on the wane to say the least by then.

Would still give it to Ali, but closer than I originally thought.

Would probably go with Canto at Flyweight over Wilde or Wonjongkam, too, though there isn't much in it and I wouldn't object too much either way.

Ring Magazine threw it open to titles in 2005:

1. Joe Louis
2. Bernard Hopkins
3. Abe Attell
4. Carlos Monzon
5. Henry Armstrong
6. Ricardo Lopez
7. Marvin Hagler
8. Eusebio Pedroza
9. Larry Holmes
10. Archie Moore

I'm looking to focus on full championship reigns primarily.

hazharrison wrote:

Boxtthis wrote:

azania wrote:Louis had longevity but fought crap. Ali was cut short in his prime but fought and beat guys who would have assaulted Louis before brunch.

I completely agree. I urge anyone interested in this debate to really look at the record of Louis in comparison to Ali. It isn't even close.

You have missed the point of the thread.

I was addressing the debate that came up within the thread, not specifically the thread topic. Happens all the time on here. Don't be a smartarse.

88Chris05 wrote:Bit trickier than you might think with the Heayvweights, for me. Ali's whole career and two reigns (can't really call his third title that), collectively, definitely trump Louis' overall career for me, but Joe's single title reign was outstanding. Ali was at his best in his first championship run, but his opposition wasn't as good as the fellas he was facing a decade later. The downside of that second reign is that, unlike first time round, he looked awful in some of those fights and ended up being usurped by Neon Leon of all people, albeit Ali was on the wane to say the least by then.

Would still give it to Ali, but closer than I originally thought.

Would probably go with Canto at Flyweight over Wilde or Wonjongkam, too, though there isn't much in it and I wouldn't object too much either way.

Single reigns rather than collective Chris. Has to be Louis.

Boxtthis wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Boxtthis wrote:

azania wrote:Louis had longevity but fought crap. Ali was cut short in his prime but fought and beat guys who would have assaulted Louis before brunch.

I completely agree. I urge anyone interested in this debate to really look at the record of Louis in comparison to Ali. It isn't even close.

You have missed the point of the thread.

I was addressing the debate that came up within the thread, not specifically the thread topic. Happens all the time on here. Don't be a smartarse.

Ok Truss.

hazharrison wrote:

Boxtthis wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Boxtthis wrote:

azania wrote:Louis had longevity but fought crap. Ali was cut short in his prime but fought and beat guys who would have assaulted Louis before brunch.

I completely agree. I urge anyone interested in this debate to really look at the record of Louis in comparison to Ali. It isn't even close.

You have missed the point of the thread.

I was addressing the debate that came up within the thread, not specifically the thread topic. Happens all the time on here. Don't be a smartarse.

Ok Truss.

Not entirely sure what that's supposed to mean.

Boxtthis wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Boxtthis wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Boxtthis wrote:

azania wrote:Louis had longevity but fought crap. Ali was cut short in his prime but fought and beat guys who would have assaulted Louis before brunch.

I completely agree. I urge anyone interested in this debate to really look at the record of Louis in comparison to Ali. It isn't even close.

You have missed the point of the thread.

I was addressing the debate that came up within the thread, not specifically the thread topic. Happens all the time on here. Don't be a smartarse.

Ok Truss.

Not entirely sure what that's supposed to mean.

Don't be a smart arse eh?

hazharrison wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Bit trickier than you might think with the Heayvweights, for me. Ali's whole career and two reigns (can't really call his third title that), collectively, definitely trump Louis' overall career for me, but Joe's single title reign was outstanding. Ali was at his best in his first championship run, but his opposition wasn't as good as the fellas he was facing a decade later. The downside of that second reign is that, unlike first time round, he looked awful in some of those fights and ended up being usurped by Neon Leon of all people, albeit Ali was on the wane to say the least by then.

Would still give it to Ali, but closer than I originally thought.

Would probably go with Canto at Flyweight over Wilde or Wonjongkam, too, though there isn't much in it and I wouldn't object too much either way.

Single reigns rather than collective Chris. Has to be Louis.

No, that's what I mean, Haz. Would still give it to Ali (1974-1978) even if we're talking single reigns, just don't think there's much in it between his second term as champion and Louis' only one. If we were looking at overall championship careers then I don't think Louis has any case, really.

This is about length of time at the top?

88Chris05 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Bit trickier than you might think with the Heayvweights, for me. Ali's whole career and two reigns (can't really call his third title that), collectively, definitely trump Louis' overall career for me, but Joe's single title reign was outstanding. Ali was at his best in his first championship run, but his opposition wasn't as good as the fellas he was facing a decade later. The downside of that second reign is that, unlike first time round, he looked awful in some of those fights and ended up being usurped by Neon Leon of all people, albeit Ali was on the wane to say the least by then.

Would still give it to Ali, but closer than I originally thought.

Would probably go with Canto at Flyweight over Wilde or Wonjongkam, too, though there isn't much in it and I wouldn't object too much either way.

Single reigns rather than collective Chris. Has to be Louis.

No, that's what I mean, Haz. Would still give it to Ali (1974-1978) even if we're talking single reigns, just don't think there's much in it between his second term as champion and Louis' only one. If we were looking at overall championship careers then I don't think Louis has any case, really.

Yeah? Three years and nine defences including London, Mildenberger and Cooper? Not for me.

hazharrison wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Bit trickier than you might think with the Heayvweights, for me. Ali's whole career and two reigns (can't really call his third title that), collectively, definitely trump Louis' overall career for me, but Joe's single title reign was outstanding. Ali was at his best in his first championship run, but his opposition wasn't as good as the fellas he was facing a decade later. The downside of that second reign is that, unlike first time round, he looked awful in some of those fights and ended up being usurped by Neon Leon of all people, albeit Ali was on the wane to say the least by then.

Would still give it to Ali, but closer than I originally thought.

Would probably go with Canto at Flyweight over Wilde or Wonjongkam, too, though there isn't much in it and I wouldn't object too much either way.

Single reigns rather than collective Chris. Has to be Louis.

No, that's what I mean, Haz. Would still give it to Ali (1974-1978) even if we're talking single reigns, just don't think there's much in it between his second term as champion and Louis' only one. If we were looking at overall championship careers then I don't think Louis has any case, really.

Yeah? Three years and nine defences including London, Mildenberger and Cooper? Not for me.

Hold on - wrong way around!

Louis had 25 straight defenses. He has fought more top ranked fighters that any boxer in history I have read.

For longevity he is the greatest in history.


If its Ali v Louis who has better wins then that goes to Ali.

Think I'd take his first over his second Chris.

Strongback wrote:Louis had 25 straight defenses.  He has fought more top ranked fighters that any boxer in history I have read.

For longevity he is the greatest in history.


If its Ali v Louis who has better wins then that goes to Ali.

Correct!

Anyway!!! Other divisions anyone?

Ali. Quality over quantity.

Turd is turd no matter how long it's polished. Louis fought 25 unpolished, floating turds.

hazharrison wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Bit trickier than you might think with the Heayvweights, for me. Ali's whole career and two reigns (can't really call his third title that), collectively, definitely trump Louis' overall career for me, but Joe's single title reign was outstanding. Ali was at his best in his first championship run, but his opposition wasn't as good as the fellas he was facing a decade later. The downside of that second reign is that, unlike first time round, he looked awful in some of those fights and ended up being usurped by Neon Leon of all people, albeit Ali was on the wane to say the least by then.

Would still give it to Ali, but closer than I originally thought.

Would probably go with Canto at Flyweight over Wilde or Wonjongkam, too, though there isn't much in it and I wouldn't object too much either way.

Single reigns rather than collective Chris. Has to be Louis.

No, that's what I mean, Haz. Would still give it to Ali (1974-1978) even if we're talking single reigns, just don't think there's much in it between his second term as champion and Louis' only one. If we were looking at overall championship careers then I don't think Louis has any case, really.

Yeah? Three years and nine defences including London, Mildenberger and Cooper? Not for me.

Hold on - wrong way around!

That's why I said it's a tough choice. No point arguing that Ali fought some poor guys and then getting giddy over Louis' opposition! Ali has the better 'big' wins. Louis has more solid ones underneath that. Louis' title reign ended in retirement, albeit a temporary one. Ali's ended with a defeat to Leon Spinks, a 7-fight novice. Both struggled in a few defences they weren't expected to struggle in, but in general Ali's struggles were a little more understandable.

As I said, not much in it, for me. Maybe we should just give it to Larry Big Pants and be done with it.

Strongback wrote:Louis had 25 straight defenses.  He has fought more top ranked fighters that any boxer in history I have read.

For longevity he is the greatest in history.


If its Ali v Louis who has better wins then that goes to Ali.

Define top ranked because Archie Moore fought over 50 fights against fighters ranked inside the worlds top ten, don't think Louis is getting close to that.

Foreman, Frazier, Lyle, Young, Bugner, Norton and Shavers is a level of quality that Louis could only have dreamed of beating, 74-77 Ali for me.

catchweight wrote:Ali. Quality over quantity.

Coopman? Dunn? Wepner? Dubious wins over Norton and Young? Ali was a faded force during that second reign.

You can do the same to Louis and he was a faded force for much of the latter part of his reign/

hazharrison wrote:

catchweight wrote:Ali. Quality over quantity.

Coopman? Dunn? Wepner? Dubious wins over Norton and Young? Ali was a faded force during that second reign.

Yep. That's the sun total of his reign. Frazier, foreman etc didn't happen. Louis got a cracking points win over Walcott (not theo).

88Chris05 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Bit trickier than you might think with the Heayvweights, for me. Ali's whole career and two reigns (can't really call his third title that), collectively, definitely trump Louis' overall career for me, but Joe's single title reign was outstanding. Ali was at his best in his first championship run, but his opposition wasn't as good as the fellas he was facing a decade later. The downside of that second reign is that, unlike first time round, he looked awful in some of those fights and ended up being usurped by Neon Leon of all people, albeit Ali was on the wane to say the least by then.

Would still give it to Ali, but closer than I originally thought.

Would probably go with Canto at Flyweight over Wilde or Wonjongkam, too, though there isn't much in it and I wouldn't object too much either way.

Single reigns rather than collective Chris. Has to be Louis.

No, that's what I mean, Haz. Would still give it to Ali (1974-1978) even if we're talking single reigns, just don't think there's much in it between his second term as champion and Louis' only one. If we were looking at overall championship careers then I don't think Louis has any case, really.

Yeah? Three years and nine defences including London, Mildenberger and Cooper? Not for me.

Hold on - wrong way around!

That's why I said it's a tough choice. No point arguing that Ali fought some poor guys and then getting giddy over Louis' opposition! Ali has the better 'big' wins. Louis has more solid ones underneath that. Louis' title reign ended in retirement, albeit a temporary one. Ali's ended with a defeat to Leon Spinks, a 7-fight novice. Both struggled in a few defences they weren't expected to struggle in, but in general Ali's struggles were a little more understandable.

As I said, not much in it, for me. Maybe we should just give it to Larry Big Pants and be done with it.

I'd take Larry's over Ali's. The main focus here is length of reign and number of defences. Louis is a clear winner.

The main focus for you Haz, quality of opposition is a big part of a reign.