Originally Posted by Unforgiven
Yeah, you make valid points. So, would you consider Larry Holmes a make-pretend champion ?
His 'reign' never actually began ?
(I do think his win over Shavers in 1979 was arguably the win over the "next best" that we might be looking for.)
Do the Ring rankings actually matter much though ? I mean, if the magazine's edicts on who is champion can be dismissed, surely who is the number 1, 2, 3, 4 contender can be equally doubted.
Shavers was not #1 at the time. Holmes never fought the #1 because he, like Jones, was overly concerned with easy money and baby games and not concerned enough with fighting all comers.
In their defense, they probably didn't really know the difference because of the way things were and still are. However, if they were as willing
as they were surely able
, they would have had a true crown.
As per the Ring ratings, there is no other that can match it in terms of longevity or authoritativeness. They began in May 1928 and, to a considerable number of fans/writers, ended in 2012.
The point is that we need objective, consistent rankings that can be used to identify the champion in history. Until this year, I'd use with The Ring ratings....