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

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

Right --and that fact is a perfect illustration of how ridiculous the sport has gotten and how dire the need is for reform.

ideally all boxers would seek the approval of just one governing body and their status as champion, but that's not how it is right now. reform yes, dismissing jones' title claim, no.

[Seamus]

He is top 3, heading to #1.

[red cobra]

I wonder what this same record is in the other divisions.

[Stonehands89]

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....

[Stonehands89]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

come on stone that's a cop out and you know it. Wlad beating Byrd or Ibragimov or Haye or Chagaev is just as acceptable as when Robinson beat Bell.

I'm not as bothered about filling vacant thrones because it's not representative of the current landscape. Boxers fight for these belts, it's what they gear their careers towards, unifying the belts is a bigger prize. for me, the best way to become undisputed is to unify all title claims, failing that the guy with the strongest claim is my pick for number 1.

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

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 The Ring ratings....

....while lufcrazy goes with his best guess.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

....while lufcrazy goes with his best guess.

it's how boxing is today.

we have 4 or 5 claimants per division and these are ranked by objective people.

if Robinson v Bell is good enough, I see nor fair basis to demand 1 v 2 as the only relevant way to fill what you call a vacant crown.

In short, I don't view your lineal title above any of the others. I believe the man makes the belt, now more so than ever before. I would love their to be just one belt with prestige that everyone fought for, but that doesn't mean we can rewrite history.

[Unforgiven]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

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.

When Holmes fought Shavers in September 1979, I expect Holmes was #1. Ali had announced his retirement.
Who was #2 ?
If it wasn't Shavers, I'm surprised - because it should have been.

[Unforgiven]

Wlad is a more clear cut case though, and maybe I shouldn't have brought up Holmes.
I still consider them both champions.

[lufcrazy]

Stone, our dispute on the relevance of lineage aside, who do you consider to have been Ali's successor?

Tyson v Spinks?

[young griffo]

Wlad does what he has to and has dominated everyone he's fought for the better part of a decade, for what that's worth.

The guy he just beat Mariusz Wach has to rank as one of the most inept fighters that I've seen challenge for a world title. He was big and brave but he was so slow, had a woeful punching technique and sub par skills. It's a win over an undefeated fighter for Wladimir but seriously someone like Louis or Tyson would've destroyed Wach in 1-3 rounds despite being so much smaller. He's a spud pure and simple and Wlad not going for the stoppage is why he's not wholey embraced by fight fans.

It's a pity because Wlad is what a champ should be. He's busy, always fit, happy to meet anyone (his brother excepted understandably) and isn't scared of rematches but beating rubbish like Wach or Peters etc will always give his detractors ammunition about ruling over a poor division, whether that's fair or not and his safety first mentality always gives the impression that he's wary of letting it all hangout for fear of another Sanders like disaster.

[Theron]

When an exiting fighter comes along Wlads accomplishments will be widely ignored imo.

[Theron]

The only thing people will be thinking of is the new exiting fighter and will want to ignore things that have happened in a boring era.

[Stonehands89]

Originally Posted by Unforgiven

When Holmes fought Shavers in September 1979, I expect Holmes was #1. Ali had announced his retirement.
Who was #2 ?
If it wasn't Shavers, I'm surprised - because it should have been.

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

[Stonehands89]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

it's how boxing is today.

we have 4 or 5 claimants per division and these are ranked by objective people.

if Robinson v Bell is good enough, I see nor fair basis to demand 1 v 2 as the only relevant way to fill what you call a vacant crown.

In short, I don't view your lineal title above any of the others. I believe the man makes the belt, now more so than ever before. I would love their to be just one belt with prestige that everyone fought for, but that doesn't mean we can rewrite history.

You cannot redo what was never done in the first place. The WBS racketeers came into the sport and made an absolute mess of it, far worse than Carbo -who at least left the thrones alone.

Sorting through the mess is a giant job and you don't know if you like my "lineage" because it is as yet unpublished.

Robinson-Bell was 66 years ago. Why not go back 86? How would you propose filling vacant thrones then?

[Stonehands89]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

Stone, our dispute on the relevance of lineage aside, who do you consider to have been Ali's successor?

Tyson v Spinks?

Tyson follows Ali. Tyson and Spinks were ranked 1 and 2 at the time of their fight.