Greatest Championship Reigns In History By Weight

by hazharrison Fri 04 Oct 2013, 10:19 pm

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?

by Hammersmith harrier Wed 09 Oct 2013, 3:08 pm

Kosaka was confined to Japan for the majority of his career and lost every time he stepped up, don't let your hatred get for Mayweather get in the way here. He is comfortably ahead of Elorde in this as are Arguello, Chavez and Nelson.

Lets not rewrite history here there have been very few undisputed champions in the past 20 years, Mayweather beat Hernandez who beat Nelson, he was the lineal champion.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 09 Oct 2013, 3:10 pm

He hates Mayweather though........Best to take that into consideration.......

Khaosai Galaxy is higher on his list..

by hazharrison Wed 09 Oct 2013, 3:11 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Kosaka was confined to Japan for the majority of his career and lost every time he stepped up, don't let your hatred get for Mayweather get in the way here. He is comfortably ahead of Elorde in this as are Arguello, Chavez and Nelson.

Lets not rewrite history here there have been very few undisputed champions in the past 20 years, Mayweather beat Hernandez who beat Nelson, he was the lineal champion.

I thought you were arguing in favour of Arguello?

by Hammersmith harrier Wed 09 Oct 2013, 3:12 pm

I also don't think you can have Attell in for featherweight or for that matter any champion throughout the no decision era, I think Driscoll comfortably proved he wasn't the best featherweight of the time.

by hazharrison Wed 09 Oct 2013, 3:13 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He hates Mayweather though........Best to take that into consideration.......

Khaosai Galaxy is higher on his list..

I try not to let personal likes/dislikes affect my judgement (I'm amazing like that).

by hazharrison Wed 09 Oct 2013, 3:14 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I also don't think you can have Attell in for featherweight or for that matter any champion throughout the no decision era, I think Driscoll comfortably proved he wasn't the best featherweight of the time.

Best title reign. That's what we're looking at here.

by Hammersmith harrier Wed 09 Oct 2013, 3:14 pm

hazharrison wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:Kosaka was confined to Japan for the majority of his career and lost every time he stepped up, don't let your hatred get for Mayweather get in the way here. He is comfortably ahead of Elorde in this as are Arguello, Chavez and Nelson.

Lets not rewrite history here there have been very few undisputed champions in the past 20 years, Mayweather beat Hernandez who beat Nelson, he was the lineal champion.
I thought you were arguing in favour of Arguello?

Seeing as your dismissing him because of a lack of lineal title I thought i'd see your counter to a lineal champion in Mayweather. I know how much you love your lists I don't see how the divisions one and two can't have the best championship reigns.

by Hammersmith harrier Wed 09 Oct 2013, 3:15 pm

hazharrison wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:I also don't think you can have Attell in for featherweight or for that matter any champion throughout the no decision era, I think Driscoll comfortably proved he wasn't the best featherweight of the time.
Best title reign. That's what we're looking at here.

The no decision against Driscoll is a big part of his reign, he would have lost his title were it not for that, it was technically a defence that he is universally regarded to have lost.

by hazharrison Wed 09 Oct 2013, 3:17 pm

He didn't, though.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 09 Oct 2013, 3:20 pm

In fairness to Hazharrison he puts a lot of meat into remaining at a weight and fighting stiffs as long as you are lineal champion..........

Me I prefer opposition to soft defences as a gage to rating fighters.........

Why Hagler is not in y top 20 and Hopkins is.........Stayed in his comfort zone.......

and he didn't have to.............

I'll never mark down the Oscars, Hearns, Leonards, Mannys who tried to discover just how good they were....

I even have Duran top 15...........

Whatever floats your boat.............For me Pryor was a huge waste of talent !!!!!!!

by Hammersmith harrier Wed 09 Oct 2013, 3:24 pm

I forgot that he held the title for 9 years defending his title 18 times so we have to ignore everything else and just look at the numbers.

by hazharrison Wed 09 Oct 2013, 3:24 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:In fairness to Hazharrison he puts a lot of meat into remaining at a weight and fighting stiffs as long as you are lineal champion..........

Me I prefer opposition to soft defences as a gage to rating fighters.........

Why Hagler is not in y top 20 and Hopkins is.........Stayed in his comfort zone.......

and he didn't have to.............

I'll never mark down the Oscars, Hearns, Leonards, Mannys who tried to discover just how good they were....

I even have Duran top 15...........

Whatever floats your boat.............For me Pryor was a huge waste of talent !!!!!!!

Boxing is supposed to be about a champion reigning at one weight.

Weight hopping to plunder alphabet titles is generally misleading. Being the man over a long period is a far more difficult thing to achieve than winning WBO titles against hand-picked opposition.

by hazharrison Wed 09 Oct 2013, 3:26 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I forgot that he held the title for 9 years defending his title 18 times so we have to ignore everything else and just look at the numbers.

Great reign wasn't it?

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 09 Oct 2013, 3:27 pm

"Boxing is supposed to be about a champion reigning at one weight"

Is it f**k..........Why are Armstrong and Robbo top 3 then..??

You do write some rubbish !!!!!!!!!!!!!

by Hammersmith harrier Wed 09 Oct 2013, 3:28 pm

It's all about context Haz, if you're Armstrong I would guess stepping up to Welterweight to beat Ross for the title was harder than any of the defences he made. The most important thing is who you beat not how many you beat, if you're weight hopping to take on weaker opponents then I see your point. But if you move on to bigger challenges then that's more impressive than hanging around defending against weaker opposition. Pacquiao moving up to fight Hatton and Cotto is more impressive than it would have been hanging around at lightweight.

by Hammersmith harrier Wed 09 Oct 2013, 3:29 pm

hazharrison wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:I forgot that he held the title for 9 years defending his title 18 times so we have to ignore everything else and just look at the numbers.
Great reign wasn't it?

Numbers wise yes but like Freddie Welsh he manipulated the system to stay as the champion when he shouldn't have been.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 09 Oct 2013, 3:30 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's all about context Haz, if you're Armstrong I would guess stepping up to Welterweight to beat Ross for the title was harder than any of the defences he made. The most important thing is who you beat not how many you beat, if you're weight hopping to take on weaker opponents then I see your point. But if you move on to bigger challenges then that's more impressive than hanging around defending against weaker opposition. Pacquiao moving up to fight Hatton and Cotto is more impressive than it would have been hanging around at lightweight.

Absolutely........Oscar should have stayed at lightweight and beat Joey Gamache...................

by Hammersmith harrier Wed 09 Oct 2013, 3:32 pm

Oscar went up in an attempt to win alphabet titles against guys like Mosley, Quartey, Vargas and Hopkins instead.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 09 Oct 2013, 3:33 pm

What a coward...............Ran from Jesse James Leija..

by hazharrison Wed 09 Oct 2013, 3:33 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:"Boxing is supposed to be about a champion reigning at one weight"

Is it f**k..........Why are Armstrong and Robbo top 3 then..??

You do write some rubbish !!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'd say in proportion to yourself, we're looking at a 9:1 rubbish ratio (in your favour).

Those two were rarities -- fighters who could dominate at multiple weights. That's distinctly different from someone winning ABC titles in eight divisions that weren't even around back when those two fought (thanks to day before weigh ins -- an experiment that has failed).

by hazharrison Wed 09 Oct 2013, 3:34 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:I forgot that he held the title for 9 years defending his title 18 times so we have to ignore everything else and just look at the numbers.
Great reign wasn't it?
Numbers wise yes but like Freddie Welsh he manipulated the system to stay as the champion when he shouldn't have been.

How did he manipulate the system?

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 09 Oct 2013, 3:35 pm

Good job I don't care what you say..........

"Hagler higher than Mayweather...."........"Bob Mee said this"............."Braddock and Baer were great fighters"

Say what you like Mate...........With those gems..

and I'm happy with that.......

by Hammersmith harrier Wed 09 Oct 2013, 3:36 pm

It's like talking to a brick wall, the no decision era meant he could cling to his title knowing he had to be knocked out to lose it. All things being fair Driscoll would have won his title or even Moran before that.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 09 Oct 2013, 3:37 pm

"Those two were rarities"

Conn, Foster, Fitzsimmons, Ketchel, tiger, Napoles, Carpentier, Walker, Basilio, ..

Why don't you just stop making a fool of yourself..

by hazharrison Wed 09 Oct 2013, 3:37 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's all about context Haz, if you're Armstrong I would guess stepping up to Welterweight to beat Ross for the title was harder than any of the defences he made. The most important thing is who you beat not how many you beat, if you're weight hopping to take on weaker opponents then I see your point. But if you move on to bigger challenges then that's more impressive than hanging around defending against weaker opposition. Pacquiao moving up to fight Hatton and Cotto is more impressive than it would have been hanging around at lightweight.
Absolutely........Oscar should have stayed at lightweight and beat Joey Gamache...................

Oscar couldn't have stayed put as he was still growing when he blew through 130 and 135. He was a welterweight -- that wasn't an unnatural weight he struggled to maintain in order to test himself. After Trinidad and then Mosley eliminated him he moved on but achieved little at the higher weights (same some ABC nonsense).

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 09 Oct 2013, 3:38 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:"Those two were rarities"

Conn, Foster, Fitzsimmons, Ketchel, tiger, Napoles, Carpentier, Walker, Basilio, ..

Why don't you just stop making a fool of yourself..

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 09 Oct 2013, 3:39 pm

Duran, Olivares, Arguello, Gomez, Pintor, Chavez............ Laugh

by Hammersmith harrier Wed 09 Oct 2013, 3:39 pm

De La Hoya beat the lineal champion in Javier Castillejo not some random alphabet title holder.

by hazharrison Wed 09 Oct 2013, 3:41 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:"Those two were rarities"

Conn, Foster, Fitzsimmons, Ketchel, tiger, Napoles, Carpentier, Walker, Basilio, ..

Why don't you just stop making a fool of yourself..

Which of those fighters dominated at more than one weight (as Robinson and Armstrong did)?

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 09 Oct 2013, 3:42 pm

Oscar was a rarity Hmammer........Don't forget that !! Laugh

Hammer we are wasting our time.........He doesn't have any regard for our opinions......

If we write some turdy book on Boxing then he will..............

Bob Mee is God..........He's all yours I'll leave him to his complete ignorance..

"Those two were rarities!!" Laugh

by hazharrison Wed 09 Oct 2013, 3:42 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:De La Hoya beat the lineal champion in Javier Castillejo not some random alphabet title holder.

Ah, the famous Javier Castillejo. Belter.

by Hammersmith harrier Wed 09 Oct 2013, 3:43 pm

Armstrong dominated more than one weight did he Haz?

by hazharrison Wed 09 Oct 2013, 3:44 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Oscar was a rarity Hmammer........Don't forget that !!

Hammer we are wasting our time.........He doesn't have any regard for our opinions......

If we write some turdy book on Boxing then he will..............

Bob Mee is God..........He's all yours I'll leave him to his complete ignorance..

"Those two were rarities!!"

As usual you bestow your usual brand of ignorance before hitting the smiley face. I'll not wait for the book, though.

by hazharrison Wed 09 Oct 2013, 3:44 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Armstrong dominated more than one weight did he Haz?

He championed featherweight, lightweight and welterweight. It's on Box Rec.

by Hammersmith harrier Wed 09 Oct 2013, 3:45 pm

hazharrison wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:De La Hoya beat the lineal champion in Javier Castillejo not some random alphabet title holder.
Ah, the famous Javier Castillejo. Belter.

Louis won his world title against Braddock, I don't see the difference or relevance. You use lineal titles when it suits you but when it doesn't you dismiss who they were won against or blabber on about not being undisputed champion.

by hazharrison Wed 09 Oct 2013, 3:46 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's like talking to a brick wall, the no decision era meant he could cling to his title knowing he had to be knocked out to lose it. All things being fair Driscoll would have won his title or even Moran before that.

The same can be applied to any number of title reigns -- weren't you arguing for Ali over Louis despite the gifts he received in his second term?

by Hammersmith harrier Wed 09 Oct 2013, 3:46 pm

hazharrison wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:Armstrong dominated more than one weight did he Haz?
He championed featherweight, lightweight and welterweight. It's on Box Rec.

He won titles at featherweight and lightweight but he didn't dominate them, do we dismiss his lightweight title because he lost it in his first defence?

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 09 Oct 2013, 3:48 pm

Griffiths, Spinks, Charles, Tunney, Camacho, Mccallum, Benitez............. Laugh

by Hammersmith harrier Wed 09 Oct 2013, 3:49 pm

hazharrison wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's like talking to a brick wall, the no decision era meant he could cling to his title knowing he had to be knocked out to lose it. All things being fair Driscoll would have won his title or even Moran before that.
The same can be applied to any number of title reigns -- weren't you arguing for Ali over Louis despite the gifts he received in his second term?

I was talking more specifically about the no decision thing but yes Ali got a bit of a gift against Norton but that's no different to Louis against Walcott. You can't apply context to anything though it's all about the numerical value, lets forget Moore only defended his title 9 times but concentrate fully on the ten years part as if that's important.

by hazharrison Wed 09 Oct 2013, 3:53 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:De La Hoya beat the lineal champion in Javier Castillejo not some random alphabet title holder.
Ah, the famous Javier Castillejo. Belter.
Louis won his world title against Braddock, I don't see the difference or relevance. You use lineal titles when it suits you but when it doesn't you dismiss who they were won against or blabber on about not being undisputed champion.

Louis won the universally recognised heavyweight crown.

No-one gave two hoots about lineal titles when Oscar was beating the likes of Castillejo. Trinidad had taken over light middleweight before discarding the alphabet belts he'd plundered -- Castillejo was viewed as a mere titlist.

Two completely different scenarios.

by hazharrison Wed 09 Oct 2013, 3:56 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Griffiths, Spinks, Charles, Tunney, Camacho, Mccallum, Benitez.............

Once again you misconstrue something and start clapping your hands. Trolling and little more.

by hazharrison Wed 09 Oct 2013, 3:57 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's like talking to a brick wall, the no decision era meant he could cling to his title knowing he had to be knocked out to lose it. All things being fair Driscoll would have won his title or even Moran before that.
The same can be applied to any number of title reigns -- weren't you arguing for Ali over Louis despite the gifts he received in his second term?
I was talking more specifically about the no decision thing but yes Ali got a bit of a gift against Norton but that's no different to Louis against Walcott. You can't apply context to anything though it's all about the numerical value, lets forget Moore only defended his title 9 times but concentrate fully on the ten years part as if that's important.

Yeah, it's usually good to apply context.

by Hammersmith harrier Wed 09 Oct 2013, 3:57 pm

What about Moore beating Maxim then, a guy who like Mills and Lesnevich should never have been anywhere near the light heavyweight title?

I'm using your logic here Haz, nobody cared about lineal titles when Mayweather beat Hernandez but you use it against him saying he was a mere titlist. So what makes a proper world title, the title itself or the boxer winning it?

by hazharrison Wed 09 Oct 2013, 4:05 pm

What's the argument? That Moore wasn't the real champion?

Lineal championships were irrelevant during the 90s (no-one proclaimed Shannon Briggs the heavyweight king when he squeaked past Foreman). The aim during this time was to unify the main three alphabet titles (to become the man) -- a difficult task to achieve (see Naseem Hamed who kept knocking titlists off only to lose another belt to politics).

by Hammersmith harrier Wed 09 Oct 2013, 4:10 pm

I would say that Moore was the real champion because he was the best in the world but tracing the title backwards from him he beat a mere titlist in my opinion. As far as i'm concerned Moore reclaimed the title for those who deserved it namely Charles, Bivins, Marshall, Morrow and Chase.

by hazharrison Thu 10 Oct 2013, 10:09 am

Now we have a list (of sorts), who do we reckon has the best reign of the lot?

Louis? Moore? Duran?

by Hammersmith harrier Thu 10 Oct 2013, 11:23 am

Got to be Monzon, every defence with the exception of Napoles was against a current top ten middleweight. Not overly impressive in itself but Benvenuti, Griffith, Briscoe and Valdes is. He doesn't get much credit for dismantling Napoles but for Hagler the smaller men were his biggest fights. Retiring as the champion having beaten your biggest rival twice is just about as good as it gets.

by hazharrison Thu 10 Oct 2013, 11:54 am

I'd go for Louis myself -- amazing feat to reign as the heavyweight king for that long.

by Hammersmith harrier Thu 10 Oct 2013, 11:58 am

You would do Haz completely ignoring that Monzon beat better fighters but no it has to be 25 in 12, such a transparent article just to blow more smoke up Louis' behind.

by hazharrison Thu 10 Oct 2013, 12:02 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You would do Haz completely ignoring that Monzon beat better fighters but no it has to be 25 in 12, such a transparent article just to blow more smoke up Louis' behind.

Come on Truss -- I'd just write a "Joe Louis is great" article if that was my intention. We don't all write articles to try and surrepticiously lick Mayweather's balls.

Joe Louis -- boxing's greatest champion.

by Sponsored content