Wladimir Klitschko now holds the record for the longest reign in HW boxing history

[Hands of Iron]

Boxing undoubtedly destroyed not only by alphabet soup, but the proliferation of super/junior divisions. Half of the 'rated contenders' today otherwise wouldn't be if forced to compete in only eight. It couldn't be more diluted or trashed and that isn't a knock on current fighters at all, but rather the structure of the sport. It's why I follow the present day scene with minimal interest.

[Unforgiven]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

Holmes was #1 and I'm pretty sure that John Tate was #2.

Well, this is where I'd have my dispute with Ring magazine.
Tate had wins over Duane Bobick and Kallie Knoetze.
But Shavers was coming off a 1 round KO over Ken Norton, who had lost a very close 15-rounder to Holmes and was being lined up for rematch. I would have had Norton a solid #2 going into the Shavers fight, and when Shavers destroyed him I'd put Earnie at #2 with no qualms about having him above the guy who beat Bobick and Knoetze.

[Unforgiven]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

Before the Walker Law boxing was a fractured mess with claimants springing up out from under the ring. Then it got pretty organized, despite sporadic conflict between the NYSAC and the NBA. It progressed.

After 1963 it got progressively worse and has since returned to the mess of the 1910s. You accept it. I don't. I believe that we can apply an objective standard to find the true champions in every division in every era -and I have. Some of the results are hurtful to be sure -some hurt me- but the price we all paid because of the ABC boys becomes very clear. They've ruined the sport and every time a writer or commentator mentions their tin-belts as if they meant something, they become complicit. It's a hard line, but nothing short of that is every going to change a damn thing.

I agree with your hard line vis a vis "the alphabet boys" BUT I fail to see why a hard line would be exacted against Wladimir Klitschko on this score.

When a champion retires - as Lennox Lewis did - we have to wait and see who emerges as the dominant premier fighter, and that fighter then becomes the world champion.

The current heavyweight division in the least hurt by the alphabet boys.

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by Mendoza

This is from the general forum section. Is the poster right?

He may have the record for facing the most consecutive

[zadfrak]

Originally Posted by Unforgiven

Well, this is where I'd have my dispute with Ring magazine.
Tate had wins over Duane Bobick and Kallie Knoetze.
But Shavers was coming off a 1 round KO over Ken Norton, who had lost a very close 15-rounder to Holmes and was being lined up for rematch. I would have had Norton a solid #2 going into the Shavers fight, and when Shavers destroyed him I'd put Earnie at #2 with no qualms about having him above the guy who beat Bobick and Knoetze.

That's not taking into consideraton a huge factor and since for that matter. Who was the guy promoted by?

That factor determined the ratings. Norton was not #2. He was an independant fighter that did things on a fight by fight basis. Tate was the #2 guy and that's because he was Arum's guy. Actually Arum's other guy--Leon Spinks was still way way up there.

Holmes and Shavers were DKP guys. Earnie's form going into that title shot was the draw with Ali. Then immediately afterwards a lopsided affair with Holmes. Then ancient Norton. Nobody liked the Acorns chances in that rematch with Larry because he was older and Larry had already dominated the guy recently.

[Unforgiven]

Originally Posted by zadfrak

That's not taking into consideraton a huge factor and since for that matter. Who was the guy promoted by?

That factor determined the ratings. Norton was not #2. He was an independant fighter that did things on a fight by fight basis. Tate was the #2 guy and that's because he was Arum's guy. Actually Arum's other guy--Leon Spinks was still way way up there.

Holmes and Shavers were DKP guys. Earnie's form going into that title shot was the draw with Ali. Then immediately afterwards a lopsided affair with Holmes. Then ancient Norton. Nobody liked the Acorns chances in that rematch with Larry because he was older and Larry had already dominated the guy recently.

Sure, Shavers shouldn't have been given much chance against Holmes but he was, imo, the next best fighter out there (based on recent form).

Even Ring magazine had Norton rated #2 at the end of 1978. Shavers wasn't in the top 10 but Domingo D'Elia was.

Interestingly, John Tate was NOT in the top 10 at the end of 1978 either, but Kallie Knoetze was at #6.

So, somehow Tate gets rated ahead of Shavers for doing a 15-round decision over the #6 guy a few months after Shavers had blasted out #2 man in 1 round !

It seems obvious that Ring magazine were bowing to the plans of Bob Arum and the WBA in concocting their ratings, yes.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by Hands of Iron

Why wouldn't it be? Robinson was the man in the division the moment he beat Fritzie Zivic, who was rated No. 1 -- That was in 1941. He didn't get a shot at the title until basically 1947, and had already beaten both the man who vacated it and even the one he was fighting for it.

Him v bell wasn't 1 v 2.

I consider him the best ww from when he stopped zivic.

[Hands of Iron]

It was 1v3.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

Note your word "titlist." That is telling.

Note your word "top dog"; ie: premiere fighter. That too is telling.

Jones was a four-division titlist, but your titlist is my contender.

He never, ever, beat the true champion.



Good argument, but you had to overlook forty years to make it. Before the Walker Law boxing was a fractured mess with claimants springing up out from under the ring. Then it got pretty organized, despite sporadic conflict between the NYSAC and the NBA. It progressed.

After 1963 it got progressively worse and has since returned to the mess of the 1910s. You accept it. I don't. I believe that we can apply an objective standard to find the true champions in every division in every era -and I have. Some of the results are hurtful to be sure -some hurt me- but the price we all paid because of the ABC boys becomes very clear. They've ruined the sport and every time a writer or commentator mentions their tin-belts as if they meant something, they become complicit. It's a hard line, but nothing short of that is every going to change a damn thing.

if noone can be ranked over a claimant that's as good a champion as any.

It's not that I accept it, it's more that it's just how boxing is today. A title has to have prestige to be worth a damn and unfortunately today no one title is as prestigious as the other and we have regressed to a multi claimant system ruled by the man and not the belt. A TRUE champion system has to be prestigious and universal otherwise it serves no purpose.

Your system is idealistic but not objective because of it's history. What was good enough for a champ of yesteryear isn't good enough today. Calling wlad a contender is totally out of context with the reality of his status. Placing his claim below Briggs is even crazier still imo.

Would boxing be better in a 1 belt universe? Of course. It's just not the reality of today.

[Stonehands89]

Originally Posted by Unforgiven

Well, this is where I'd have my dispute with Ring magazine.
Tate had wins over Duane Bobick and Kallie Knoetze.
But Shavers was coming off a 1 round KO over Ken Norton, who had lost a very close 15-rounder to Holmes and was being lined up for rematch. I would have had Norton a solid #2 going into the Shavers fight, and when Shavers destroyed him I'd put Earnie at #2 with no qualms about having him above the guy who beat Bobick and Knoetze.

I would probably agree, though we'd have to take great care unilaterally overruling the recognized rankings body. Ultimately, Holmes is to blame.

[Stonehands89]

Originally Posted by Unforgiven

I agree with your hard line vis a vis "the alphabet boys" BUT I fail to see why a hard line would be exacted against Wladimir Klitschko on this score.

When a champion retires - as Lennox Lewis did - we have to wait and see who emerges as the dominant premier fighter, and that fighter then becomes the world champion.

The current heavyweight division in the least hurt by the alphabet boys.

Whoever emerges as the dominant premiere fighter becomes the world champion? On the contrary, whoever emerges as the dominant premiers fighter remains only that until and unless he defeats his nearest rival as recognized by the authoritative rankings body.

The premiere fighter in the division isn't always the champion. They are different concepts.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by Hands of Iron

It was 1v3.

Not good enough by stoneys system which is my point.

[Stonehands89]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

if noone can be ranked over a claimant that's as good a champion as any.

It's not that I accept it, it's more that it's just how boxing is today. A title has to have prestige to be worth a damn and unfortunately today no one title is as prestigious as the other and we have regressed to a multi claimant system ruled by the man and not the belt. A TRUE champion system has to be prestigious and universal otherwise it serves no purpose.

Your system is idealistic but not objective because of it's history. What was good enough for a champ of yesteryear isn't good enough today. Calling wlad a contender is totally out of context with the reality of his status. Placing his claim below Briggs is even crazier still imo.

Would boxing be better in a 1 belt universe? Of course. It's just not the reality of today.

"Realities" change with reform, my friend, and reform begins with clarity. Stay tuned.

[Stonehands89]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

Not good enough by stoneys system which is my point.

--not good enough by any system with any sense. Boxing is a combat sport! No one has a right to a conquerors' throne if he skips his most dangerous rival!

That's not rigidity! It's common sense!

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

--not good enough by any system with any sense. Boxing is a combat sport! No one has a right to a conquerors' throne if he skips his most dangerous rival!

That's not rigidity! It's common sense!

Sugar Ray Robinson.

Regarding the clarity, I'd accept your premise from when reform begins, it is the best wayby far. However it isn't clear today due to a multitude of titles that fighters are aiming to hold. I want your way to be the way, I just don't think it fits in with recent history in respect to how the fighters were perceived.