Looking back through most, if not all eras, would it be fair to say the following: There nearly always a standout class of fighter say the Champion class. At one time there is rarely ever more than 1or 2 of these and at the very most say 3 at any one time. These guys will always win against the fighters the are fighting (unless its each other), usually by KO or dominant points victory against the others unless they let themselves go. Example, Tyson, Lewis, Ali, Louis, Jeffries etc. After this, there is always top contenders status. These guys will beat the guys Knockout or dominate most guys who are a level below them, and will usually give the champions a good fight and great run for their money but will come up short on most occassions, alhtough they might get the occassional upset and they will generally take the champions the distance. At any one time, there are usually no more then about 5 and sometimes as few as 1 or 2 of these fighters going around. In this category, i would suggest guys like Rex Lane, Ken Norton, Ray Mercer, Tony Tucker. World Class fighters. These are guys who will get kod by those above them, but will go the distance on a regular basis with those one level and sometimes 2 levels above them, they are often unproven with big wraps who KO or beat guys below them but fail when they step up against the better fighters, but they do beat all the ordinary national champions and any up and comers who are not really up to it. Eg are Michael Grant, Monte Barrett, Friday Ahunya etc there are usually about 10 to 20 of these at any one time, maybe. As a general rule, (save for upsets which will always happen, or unproven fighters still establishing a class for themselves) in most cases, fighters will rarely beat fighters of a higher class (certainly not in trilogies anyway) and the numbers of fighters will not really change all that much in the various different classes. Would this be fair comment?
Okay, not too much response, but no one really seems to disagree with the first part of the idea. Now for the question, where does the Light Heavyweight champions fit in? I will probably miss a few, but think about the guys who were dominant or undisputed light heavyweight champions. I can think of the following fighters who stepped up from their position of World light heavyweight champion. OBrien - Took Champion the distance, but couldnt get the win. Must be just below championship class, ie top contender. Braddock: Not that great as a light heavy, but was one of the better ones potential wise and beat great light heavy John Henry Lewis. Won the title, and beat top challenger Farr, but lost to the great Joe Louis. Must be considered either a top challenger or even championship class. John Henry Lewis - Outclassed by Louis, but it was his last fight, and he failed the medical for his next fight due to bad eyesight. Not possible to rank. But he almost certainly wasnt championship class. Not sure if he would be top challenger or not. Joe could outclass top challengers, even champions. Look at the Schmelling rematch. Conn - Stepped up and lost to Joe Louis. Put up arguably the best effort of anyone. Has to be a top contender status, possibly even sneak into the championship class, but not enough fights. Tunney - Stepped up and beat a champion, Dempsey and beat top contender class fighters. Has to be either champion class or top contender class. Moore - Beat top contenders, almost all the time. Couldnt quite win the title. Has to be somewhere between top contenders and just below champion class. Foster - Lost to the champions he faced. Ali, Frazier. Also lost to top contenders Folley and terrell and Jones, but these were earlier in his career. And he did go the distance with Folley. He competed with and beat world class heavys he faced like whitehurst and Besmanoff. Definitely won of the weak examples, but he would seem to be somewhere between top contender and World class, probably closer to world class than any other. Spinks: Beat an older champion class fighter, but was blown out by an ATG fighter. Also beat contenders he faced. Should probably be champion class, but if not, he is above top contender status. Moorer: Not a great light heavy champ, but probably was the best light heavy when he stood up. Won the championship but not for long, and did lose to champion class fighters and top contender fighters after winning the title. Has to be at least a top contender. Jones Jr - Not sure what to make of the Ruiz fight. Ruiz was a champion at the time of the fight, but arguably not championship class. Jones beat Ruiz, but i think he was more a top contender. It seems that JOnes is somewhere between top contender and championship. Toney - Is trading fights with the top contenders, but not championship class. Has to be considered a top contender, at his best. He did beat older championship class fighter vander Holyfield. Adamek. - The latest light heavy to step up. Adamek has already beaten top contenders. We dont know if he will step up to championship class yet or not, even though most tell us currently he is no chance because of his size. There are plent of other examples to. Ezzard Charles, Langford, Fitzsimmons, Walker, Chris Byrd etc. So given that we agree with the class of heavyweight opponents, based on history, including todays era of the superheavyweights, is it fair to say that if a dominant world light heavyweight champion steps up to heavyweight and loses, then that win for the champion (whether it be Jack Johnson or Wladimir Klitchsko) must be considered on par with a victory over a top contender and possibly as good as a victory over a championship class opponent? In other words, light heavyweight champion (clear champ, not an alpha champ) needs to slot in between champion class and top contender class, as a general rule. Is this also fair comment? Or can someone give me lots of examples where it doesnt work.
Bump... Would like to see what Seamus, Powerpuncher and some of the other bigger is better fans think of this theory.
