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?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

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.

The thread is about longevity which means straight defenses as the man. Moore didn't beat 25 ranked guys in a row defending the title.

Louis fought every number one contender except one who was only No.1 for a few weeks. Everybody he fought worked their way up the ladder to get their shot. He fought everybody that was out there.


Moore is a great no doubt. Toss up between himself and Charles at light heavyweight. P4P it's Charles.

Why not call the thread "longest reigns in history" and be done with this charade.

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.

He was fighting and beating better opponents than Louis, faded or not. Legendary fights with Foreman and Frazier. Cant understand criticising Ali's opponents in relation to Louis.

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

Ali received a few gifts in that second reign, though. Performance counts, too. He lost a step after Foreman and was a shadow after Frazier.

25 ranked fighters in a row is such a simplistic approach to take. Alot of them were not very good because it was a weaker division. Wlad Klitschko has probably beaten twenty "ranked" heavyweights and not one of them would even be worth a single Ali defence.

All sounds very impressive but these ranked guys on the whole weren't very good.

It's no toss up between Moore and Charles, Ezzard was 3-0 that says it all, not even close.

catchweight wrote:

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.

He was fighting and beating better opponents than Louis, faded or not. Legendary fights with Foreman and Frazier. Cant understand criticising Ali's opponents in relation to Louis.

Redressing the balance to a degree - Louis beat Braddock, Farr, Schmeling, Conn, Baer and Walcott. While they can't compare to Foreman and Frazier, this assumption that Louis fought rubbish is unfounded. He had easier nights but so did Ali (which is why I mentioned the likes of Dunn and Wepner).

Anyone want to try the others? Those eight look pretty solid.

Light middleweight is tougher than 168.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:All sounds very impressive but these ranked guys on the whole weren't very good.

It's no toss up between Moore and Charles, Ezzard was 3-0 that says it all, not even close.

Too simplistic. Moore was in with everybody and improved with age. Moore's ring generalship and punching puts him above every LHW except Charles. To make a proper comparison you would need to hit the books. Some who have put Moore as the greatest LHW ever.

His longevity and number of top class wins has to be considered.

Also he's the all time KO king with over 130 KO's.

hazharrison wrote:

catchweight wrote:

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.

He was fighting and beating better opponents than Louis, faded or not. Legendary fights with Foreman and Frazier. Cant understand criticising Ali's opponents in relation to Louis.

Redressing the balance to a degree - Louis beat Braddock, Farr, Schmeling, Conn, Baer and Walcott. While they can't compare to Foreman and Frazier, this assumption that Louis fought rubbish is unfounded. He had easier nights but so did Ali (which is why I mentioned the likes of Dunn and Wepner).

Wepner even got that knock down.

hazharrison wrote:

catchweight wrote:

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.

He was fighting and beating better opponents than Louis, faded or not. Legendary fights with Foreman and Frazier. Cant understand criticising Ali's opponents in relation to Louis.

Redressing the balance to a degree - Louis beat Braddock, Farr, Schmeling, Conn, Baer and Walcott. While they can't compare to Foreman and Frazier, this assumption that Louis fought rubbish is unfounded. He had easier nights but so did Ali (which is why I mentioned the likes of Dunn and Wepner).

I dont assume Louis fought rubbish. He just didnt fight heavyweights as good as Ali did.

Strongback wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:All sounds very impressive but these ranked guys on the whole weren't very good.

It's no toss up between Moore and Charles, Ezzard was 3-0 that says it all, not even close.

Too simplistic.  Moore was in with everybody and improved with age.  Moore's ring generalship and punching puts him above every LHW except Charles.  To make a proper comparison you would need to hit the books.  Some who have put Moore as the greatest LHW ever.

His longevity and number of top class wins has to be considered.  

Also he's the all time KO king with over 130 KO's.

Or i'll just look at the fact Charles owned him, owned his conquerer Burley and has a win list at 175lbs that is beyond compare, it really is not close and I can make my own mind up on that I don't need the opinions of Sugar, Mee or the IBRO.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Strongback wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:All sounds very impressive but these ranked guys on the whole weren't very good.

It's no toss up between Moore and Charles, Ezzard was 3-0 that says it all, not even close.

Too simplistic.  Moore was in with everybody and improved with age.  Moore's ring generalship and punching puts him above every LHW except Charles.  To make a proper comparison you would need to hit the books.  Some who have put Moore as the greatest LHW ever.

His longevity and number of top class wins has to be considered.  

Also he's the all time KO king with over 130 KO's.

Or i'll just look at the fact Charles owned him, owned his conquerer Burley and has a win list at 175lbs that is beyond compare, it really is not close and I can make my own mind up on that I don't need the opinions of Sugar, Mee or the IBRO.

Moore got much much better in the period after his defeats to Charles and Burley.  He is probably the fighter that learned more from defeat than any fighter in the history of boxing.  

You can cherry pick a few results but that doesn't give you a rounded picture or the reason why Moore is so highly rated.   Typical really of a lot of posters on here who get something of a very limited nature in their head and argue it as if its gospel.

I know more than enough about both to be happy that Charles ranks head and shoulders above. Moore in his later years was not the fighter he once was, through experience he found a way to win but he wasn't better, his level of opposition at 175lbs drastically dropped too.

You're full of sh1t.

You haven't a clue what you're talking about.

For the purposes of this thread: Charles didn't have a title reign! Next!!

Thinking Chavez at 140 -- pipping Pryor, Cervantes and Tszyu.

Hard to look past JCC at LWW.


From Taylor in 1990 to Randall in 1994 he has 10 consecutive linear defenses.

Cervantes also has 10 lineal defenses from 1972-1976

Tsyzu can't match that.


Overall Chavez for the number of title fights of any type he won.

Strongback wrote:You're full of sh1t.

You haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Thankfully I'd guess I know a lot more than you do about Moore, Charles and their opposition.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Strongback wrote:You're full of sh1t.

You haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Thankfully I'd guess I know a lot more than you do about Moore, Charles and their opposition.

Not judging by your input on this thread.

You're the Mr Boxrec of the board. Always have been.

Read some articles about Moore instead of cherry picking a few facts about him from Boxrec.


Moore was the man at LHW for 10 years. Longest reign in the history of the division by a good margin.

You do make me laugh Strongy, so selective with your facts, the longest reign in term of time but Spinks, Hill, Dariusz, Jones and Foster all have more consecutive successful defences.

If you know so much about Moore could tell me which fights of his highlight the massive improvements in his later years because watching him bounced around by Durelle and outboxed by Johnson would suggest the opposite.

Ok - Chavez at 140. Galaxy at super fly?

Longest reign in history. Don't argue with that as its fact. "Bounced around"?

I am going to assume for the rest of your tenure here that you know nothing.

Still not sure about Pong at Fly. Pascual Perez anyone?

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Longest reign in history. Don't argue with that as its fact. "Bounced around"?

I am going to assume for the rest of your tenure here that you know nothing.

So number of defences doesn't matter?

Durelle had him down three times in the first round then once again later in the fight, a journeyman who wouldn't have got near him in his prime, the years he spent fighting Charles and the black murderers row.

Archie Moore = Legend. The Grand Old Man of boxing.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You do make me laugh Strongy, so selective with your facts, the longest reign in term of time but Spinks, Hill, Dariusz, Jones and Foster all have more consecutive successful defences.

If you know so much about Moore could tell me which fights of his highlight the massive improvements in his later years because watching him bounced around by Durelle and outboxed by Johnson would suggest the opposite.

Been reading BOXREC again I see. You do know Moore only got his title shot at 39. He held the title till he was approaching 50.


As to the other fighters you mention I suggest you look up what THE MAN means in boxing. Maybe BOXREC's record sheet on Moore doesn't tell you that.

You really would have nothing to say without your 'liddle friend' BOXREC.

Interesting fact about Archie (not from boxrec). He used to write open letters in the newspapers of the day appealing for title shots that he deserved and offering analysis on the fighters of the day. He would sign off as "The most under appreciated boxer in the world". Excellent stuff.

Archie Moore = The William Gladstone and James Brown of boxing.

I don't need Boxrec to talk about Moore

Going from the upstart young fighter who Burley took pleasure from pasting to the more calm but determined old man who eventually got the shot he deserved but you're struggling to differentiate from Moore the boxer to Moore the champion.

He spent the middle part of his career fighting the best in the world with only Charles getting the better of him in a series of fights, he went from fighting the black murderers row the actual best in the world to beating Maxim for the title. The climate of that era isn't easy the world champion often wasn't the best in the world but thankfully Moore persisted and righted that wrong.

I'm well aware that Moore was the lineal champion throughout his reign but so was Foster and depending on your view so was Dariusz but there's more to it than length of reign, style of victory, opposition and number of defences is also important. I would have Moore a close second to Foster for the sole reason of the comfort of victory, he ripped through the division in comparison to Moore clinging to his title.

hazharrison wrote:Still not sure about Pong at Fly. Pascual Perez anyone?

Pong has 16 straight defenses as lineal champ. Don't think there's better.


Can only check the records books such as BOXREC on this one as I know nothing about the lower weight divisions.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I don't need Boxrec to talk about Moore

Going from the upstart young fighter who Burley took pleasure from pasting to the more calm but determined old man who eventually got the shot he deserved but you're struggling to differentiate from Moore the boxer to Moore the champion.

He spent the middle part of his career fighting the best in the world with only Charles getting the better of him in a series of fights, he went from fighting the black murderers row the actual best in the world to beating Maxim for the title. The climate of that era isn't easy the world champion often wasn't the best in the world but thankfully Moore persisted and righted that wrong.

I'm well aware that Moore was the lineal champion throughout his reign but so was Foster and depending on your view so was Dariusz but there's more to it than length of reign, style of victory, opposition and number of defences is also important. I would have Moore a close second to Foster for the sole reason of the comfort of victory, he ripped through the division in comparison to Moore clinging to his title.

Foster had more 12 defenses before stepping up to heavy and losing he then defended 4 more time at LHW. He was lineal chamo for 6 years.

Based on the number of consecutive wins as champ he beats Moore. Moore had better opposition. Foster fought in a weaker era..

Moore has Maxim who he'd already beaten for the title and Harold Johnson, you're not showing me anything here Strongy you're not taking into the style in which they won probably because you've not watched any of the fights.

Moore fought 3 fighter that held the title, Foster 2.


Foster's opposition is not his fault but it was a weaker era. That's why Foster is often ranked behind Moore, Charles, Tunney and Spinks.

Offer me something that isn't taken straight off boxrec or a historians list. You're getting muddled between a championship reign and overall fights.

I also can't work out who the third champion is that Moore defended against, Johnson and Maxim I do know.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Offer me something that isn't taken straight off boxrec or a historians list. You're getting muddled between a championship reign and overall fights.

Both fought a lot more than 2 or 3 champions in their career. You didn't understand what I've said.

Foster fought in a week era. Every book or article about him mentions it. You won't read that on BOXREC though.

You're spouting crap again.

If you have something to add then add it. Otherwise save it for the clowns you like to hang out with.

This is about championship reign and nothing else, go on Strongy offer me something you've read about, I need educating. I can judge for myself the standard of opposition having taken time to watch Moore and Foster fight I don't need to be told what to think. Moores reign was very iffy I know this because I have in fact read a lot about him and watched him.

You don't offer any opinions on here you just go on the word of others, make your own mind up you might learn a thing or two.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I also can't work out who the third champion is that Moore defended against, Johnson and Maxim I do know.

Bobo Olson

You mean the middleweight champion Bobo Olson?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:This is about championship reign and nothing else, go on Strongy offer me something you've read about, I need educating. I can judge for myself the standard of opposition having taken time to watch Moore and Foster fight I don't need to be told what to think. Moores reign was very iffy I know this because I have in fact read a lot about him and watched him.

You don't offer any opinions on here you just go on the word of others, make your own mind up you might learn a thing or two.

So Foster didn't fight in a weak era? Good luck arguing that one.


To get a rounded picture of a fighter involves watching footage, reading articles and looking at their record.


You seem to have views limited to BOXREC records. What's worse is you can't even read BOXREC properly.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You mean the middleweight champion Bobo Olson?

He was a champion?


What part of that do you not understand?

The words of a beaten man Strongy, I base my views on my eyes and you should start using yours to read properly.

Foster fought in a weakish era nowhere have I denied but by watching him and not using Boxrec I determined that he ruled more impressively than Moore. Moores era consisted of Johnson and Maxim, the greats of Marshall, Charles and Bivins had long vacated the division or retired. His win over Johnson is the stand out win of the pair but the general consensus is that he was being outboxed. This combined with his struggles against the average Durelle makes his reign less impressive. Foster had no such worried until his final defence against Ahmuda.

Moore is the greater light heavyweight but Foster had the more impressive title reign. His opposition was no weaker than Louis' at heavyweight. This is where you are selective, using numbers when they suit your view but dismissing them when they don't.

Also constantly accusing me of using Boxrec isn't going to make your viewpoint any stronger. It is simply making you look foolish, at no point do you offer anything but stats and lists.

Strongback wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You mean the middleweight champion Bobo Olson?

He was a champion?


What part of that do you not understand?

The part where you said Moore defended against 3 men who held the title.

This is a right old ding dong. Somebody land the knock out blow. Ive got the smelling salts handy.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The words of a beaten man Strongy, I base my views on my eyes and you should start using yours to read properly.

Foster fought in a weakish era nowhere have I denied but by watching him and not using Boxrec I determined that he ruled more impressively than Moore. Moores era consisted of Johnson and Maxim, the greats of Marshall, Charles and Bivins had long vacated the division or retired. His win over Johnson is the stand out win of the pair but the general consensus is that he was being outboxed. This combined with his struggles against the average Durelle makes his reign less impressive. Foster had no such worried until his final defence against Ahmuda.

Moore is the greater light heavyweight but Foster had the more impressive title reign. His opposition was no weaker than Louis' at heavyweight. This is where you are selective, using numbers when they suit your view but dismissing them when they don't.

Also constantly accusing me of using Boxrec isn't going to make your viewpoint any stronger. It is simply making you look foolish, at no point do you offer anything but stats and lists.

So from all that waffle you are saying:

Moore is a better LHW but Foster who fought in a weak era had the better reign.


As for your contribution you have offered nothing but BOXREC on here for years, you don't seem to know that. I see no insight in what you have said.


For the 'record' this is a thread about stats. You are the one who's trying to turn it into a crap heap.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Strongback wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You mean the middleweight champion Bobo Olson?

He was a champion?


What part of that do you not understand?

The part where you said Moore defended against 3 men who held the title.

Semantics.


The mediocre revel in semantics.

You're boring me now Strongy, offer me some insight go on.

Stats don't mean a thing without quantifying them, a ten year reign is impressive but if you defend intermittently it means less. I may as well chuck Kilbane in at featherweight for his 11 year reign but that would be silly.

I'm offering an opinion based on performances, how I'm doing that using Boxrec only you would know.

Strongback wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Strongback wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You mean the middleweight champion Bobo Olson?

He was a champion?


What part of that do you not understand?

The part where you said Moore defended against 3 men who held the title.

Semantics.


The mediocre revel in semantics.

How is it semantics when you were clearly referring to 175lb champions, enlighten me why Moores reign is so impressive, using something other than Boxrec?

Three fighters that were champion then. Is that better for you?