A fighter who faced what he had to face, who fought every top contender, ducked no one, no cherry picking, didn't wait too long to fight somebody, who fought frequently enough and leaves no open question marks... Of course, it's an idealized picture, but who comes close to that? Which boxer(s) comes to your mind? (all weight divisions) Obviously, his title reign shouldn't be too short.
Pipino Cuevas. Destroyed the entire top 10 while Palomino fought second raters besides Muniz. Politics kep Pipino & Carlos apart.
Yoda, this is a fantastic question. And the first fighter that came to my mind was Fighting Harada. He held the bantam title from May of '65 to February of '68. He won the title from a long-serving HOF bantam in Eder Jofre and successfully defended it against only top-rung opposition. He gave Jofre a rematch and beat Alan Rudkin, Jose Medel, Bernardo Caraballo and lost the title to Lionel Rose. And let's not forget Rose was a substitute for #1 contender Jesus Pimental. Clearly he avoided no one and took no easy defenses. Again, great question.
Alexis Arguello lightweight. Carlos Monzon Roberto Duran Victor Galindez Muhammad Ali Joe Frazier Miguel Canto
Hagler, Benn & Tyson. MT gets called out occasionally for ducking some, but not from my recollection he didn't.
Joe Louis- Beat the best of his era, held his belt for a long enough time to be dethroned by farther time.
Rocky Marciano. Consistently defended against the most highly ranked contenders, for as long as he wanted the title, then stepped aside and let somebody else have a go.
I know that forum spends way too much time on the heavyweights but look at Holyfields field of study......
Rocky's was almost perfect. Hagler's and Ali's first are others that come to mind. Leonard's WW reigns were short, but didn't lack in quality.
His undisputed reign wasn't all that. Foreman, Cooper and Holmes before Bowe. In fairness Cooper was an alternate for Tyson (the alternate's alternate really), though.
On this Forum the importance of resumes are all too important. While it makes for a good argument when it comes to comparisons, in reality a fighter can only fight what is put in front of him. He cannot fight another fighter from the turn of last century or one from the distant future. I think that a fighter should be judged by his own skills against the opponent that he is fighting in the present day. The hypothetical matches is left up to the imagination of the Posters on this site. How can for example. we fault Sonny Liston or Larry Holmes because Lennox Lewis or the Klitchkos's are not on their resumes? There might be a biological answer to that one.
Thanks my friend. It is funny to degrade a fighter because he did not fight someone in the past, present, or future. I find that hilarious, maybe they will be fighting their future grandchildren. Lol.
