We can paint a bit of rhetoric on anything here, butI'm strictly commenting on the subject of greatest title reign. Galindez defended his title 11 times and fought 9 non-titles while champ. Spinks sat on his title after the Davis fight for a year and Davis didn't lose to Johnson for 14 months after the Spinks fight. Ample time for Michael to put it on the line. But who did he fight? The absolutely hopeliess David Sears and Jim McDonald instead of Davis. By definistion, not the greatest reign.
It's so hard because quite often the champ wasn't the best around. Was Conteh better than Galindez? Was DM better than Jones? Was Erdei better than Tarver, Hopkins or Joe? Was Lesnevic better than Charles etc. Almost all the long reigns are somewhat tainted. It's gotta be between Spinks and Foster for me.
Yes but I am asking you to rank the reigns themselves, not the fighters. Who had the most impressive tenures as lineal light heavyweight champions?
Galindez did fight some very good opposition as champion, but several of his defenses were razor close and/or controversial.
I'm not sure if he had the best LH reign but like you say he was pure class. Boxing skill, distance, timing and movement were something others fighters could learn a lot from him. I feel he never got the recognition he deserved and is one of the most underrated boxers in history. I met him in Russia a few years ago and told him all these things.
Tommy Loughran, Archie Moore, Bob Foster, Victor Galindez, and Michael Spinks. All in all, Moore probably edges this.
By definition, those 9 non-title fights don't count toward a title reign. Just saying. And if Sears and McDonald weren't stellar contenders, the same could be said for Skog and Smith. In all, I think Spinks' reign might be a little better based on dominance exerted against a similar level of contender.