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

Larry Holmes vs. Top 10 rated opponents or champions.

1976
Feburary: debuts at No. 8 in Ring ratings (no exact date on ratings).
No rated opponents.

1977
No rated opponetns.

1978
Ernie Shavers - No. 7
Ken Norton - No. 2
Alfredo Evangelista - No. 6

1979
Ossie Ocasio - No. 5
Mike Weaver - No. 8
Ernie Shavers - No. 3 (Holmes rated as no. 1 in this fight, HW title Vacant).

1980
Lorenzo Zanon - No. 7
Leroy Jones - No. 6
Scott LeDoux - No. 10
***Holmes upgraded to HW champion by The Ring with April 1, 1980 ratings)***
Muhammad Ali - No. 5

1981
Trevor Berbick - No. 7
Leon Spinks - No. 3
Renaldo Snipes - no. 10

1982
Gerry Cooney - No. 3
Randall Cobb - No. 9

1983
Tim Witherspoon - No. 9
Marvis Frazier - No. 10

1984
James Smith - No. 9

1985
David Bey - No. 3
(Carl Williams - No. 12, rises to no. 9 after fight with Holmes)

Michael Spinks - World Champ Light-Heavyweight - LOSS

1986
Michael Spinks - World Champ - LOSS

1988
Mike Tyson - No. 1 - LOSS

1992
Ray Mercer - No. 5
Evander Holyfield - World Champ - LOSS

1995
Oliver McCall - No. 2 - LOSS


Record vs. Top 10/Champions: 20-5

 

But it was done. Jones was considered by all and sundry a 4 weight titlist. In 3 of those weights he was the top dog.

Your results are unpublished, but it is the principle I refer to. It's idealistic but not currently representative with boxing imo.

We can go back many years to the days of the claimant system which mirrors today's climate. Boxing has had many periods of fracture, the days of the colour bar are another example. When boxing wasn't as fractured, we saw titles claimed by ways other than 1v2 the best example being Robinson. An insistance today not only ignores the current climate but it doesn't follow on from it's own history.

Lineage is perfect in a perfect world, but with multiple titles and poor judging we can't pretend boxing is black and white. We certainly can't pretend there is a vacant hw crown.

 

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.

 

By December 1946, they should've just handed Robinson the title. In real exquisite gift wrapping, with a fruit basket and long letter of apology for the disservice.

 

Hands how do rate the brothers?

 

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 "contribution to the sport of boxing" was a rational criterion to rate them, I'd rate them both very high there. But it isn't.

I would, however, rate them quite high in terms of Dominance though would have to dock points because of the plain fact that neither has in fact been quite as dominant as they appear to be. They're avoiding their most dangerous rival -the only rival who could have truly posed a threat over the past several years. Excuses aside, that is a problem.

The often-times laughable quality of their competition hurts their legacies most of all. I happen to think both of them would be pretty beatable in other eras -the 70s and the 90s particularly.

 

I don't think we rate Vitali. Can probably count on one hand the number of live contenders he's actually beaten. With Wlad, it depends on your criteria I guess. A fighter - and particularly a Heavyweight - only has what's in front of him in his own time to conquer, which is naturally why people tend to place more emphasis on title reigns, dominance and such in regards to them. With that said, not all era's are created equal and the quality of the opposition (their ability, skills, worth, accomplishment, level at the time) has to be judged. That's open to (wide) interpretation. It'll have people saying things like Roy Jones win over Malinga trumps Robinson's over Fullmer.

 

--by the way, for those interested, I'll have an essay covering this question in an essay on The Sweet Science very soon.

 

When is the Gods of War book coming out? :deal

And where the hell have you been lately? :-(

 

Having shared the ring, professionally and recreationally, with many of the greats of the 90's and with the K Bros, I happen to think they would have done just fine in the 90's.

The Lewis hump, I can't say I'd bet on them overcoming, but I can't say I see the others surviving. They are really very, very good. Masterful control of range, incredible physical strength, Vitali is awkward impossible to establish a rhythm against, Wlad is technically incredibly with concussive power, they have good speed of hand and foot(Wlad) for men their size, and above all, they have tremendous smart and ring IQ.

I was so impressed with these guys in my experience with them. They'll be underrated forever, and I think that is a shame. Nicest, hardest working, most detail-focused boxers I've seen in years. Also, badasses.

 

Cool, thanks mate.

True, I consider Wlad to be the man of this era though.

 

To reastablish a true "lineage" once again we'd nearly have to have a division by division "Super 6" like was done at 168 (where there is no doubt that Andre Ward is the man there now).

For 17 or so divisions that is probably unlikely to ever happen with the vested interests of the big promoters blocking a lot of the fights that would need to be made and boxing as a whole needs to happen.

So as it stands we'll have to trawl through history books to find out who the lineal guy truly is. I mean who was lineal champ at 168 when Jones beat Toney? Buggered if I know and once all these super and junior divisions came into being on top of the alphabet titles the lineal title waters were further murkied to be almost inpenetrable to all but the most dedicated hard core fan.

As an example of the cheapening of the term "world title" I watched Tyson-Douglas back to back before Wlad-Wach and my wife (who doesn't like boxing) of course knew Tyson but also Douglas and Holyfield who was just sitting ringside, as heavyweight champs. She hadn't heard of either Wlad or Wach, yet Wladamir has been a titlist for longer than Tyson ever was.

This malaise that hangs over boxing won't go away until there is a complete overhaul of the rankings and a complete scrapping of, or unification of the WBC,WBA,IBF,WBO...etc etc. If it doesn't happen and we keep missing out on the Floyd-Pac fights then boxing will keep it's slow inevitable drift to minor league "niche" sport, if it isn't there already.

 

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.

 

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.