Championship reigns v H2H

Long dominant reigns in the past were a excellent barometer of greatness. Today with so many belts floating around it can be diminished, that’s why unifying early and then defending against the best is paramount. The defenses of someone like Wladimir Klitschko dwarf a single belt holder like Wilder. Sven Ottke is another guy ton of defenses but holding a single belt and fighting guys who are not generally considered world title challengers diminishes their dominance.
All the alphabets have their own agendas that’s why their needs to be independent sources and a consensus on who the best challengers are. That’s why the tnbr and ring magazine are so important. It gives the fan a gauge on the guys who are facing legit challenges and guys who are milking belts

 

I don't put one above the other. There's can always be a story within a story. Larry Holmes had a long dominant reign yet shut up shop to the best challengers post Cooney. By contrast Hagler had a long dominant reign and took on the very best right until the end. You also have to factor in just how good the era was when looking at long dominant reigns. It can be hard to judge.

 

Both to some extent. Thing is if you spend years fighting the best avalible and winning, it suggests pretty good ability H2H, because it shows ability with different style.

And for some like Jack Johnson and Ali, there's a greatness out of the ring, that to some extent I think is worth acknowledging

 

some reigns are very fake, but you cant fake H2H.

 

Its a hard question in some way s .A title holder could reign years and years but not have the greatest opposition to beat .Another title holder may reign a short period but face and beat a greater level of opposition. So the question is who the better fighter?
But other quality s come in to it .
Tommy Burns had a long line of defences but I don't have him above Liston who only had one defence. And sometimes its just a person s personal preference. It can be hard to separate Charles and Moore but it can come down to who u prefer watching .Good thread idea .

 

yeh tommy only had part a title until he tried to unify with jack, adn then it was painfully obvious who the man actually was at hw. credit to him for eventually trying though.

liston on the other hand, would have had the whole pie a lot earlier, obvious from his landslide demolition of the champ.

 

Yet it has been argued that Hagler’s best wins and most high profile middleweight fights were all against former Jr Middleweights and Welterweights moving up so you are right when you say that holes can be picked in anyone’s record if you were really of that mind.

 

It's a good question.

What throws things--especially when discussing potential matches like we do--are the rise to the occasion guys. They can defeat the long reigning champs on a given night. Like a Turpin over Robinson. He was never going to able to string together a ton of defenses like a Robinson, but on 1 night, he could get the job done as a better fighter.

But there are far fewer long reigning champs than there are rise to the occasion types. And like mentioned above, with 4 world titles, the path of least resistance is a constant result. Very few guys really cleaning out division.

But with those 4 world titles, a guy can avoid ever being a road warrior. Or fighting multiple cross promotions even. But to e, if a guy has say > 6 or 8 defenses, I see no reason they should not be holding multiple belts. Maybe that should be a criteria of sorts.

My preference is for long title reigns. But an asterisk has to be used for quite a few decades now.

 

That's true, all boils down to circumstances sometimes as well .Certain fighters being given a shot whilst still in prime, some denied it cos of the color bar .

 

Precisely Jel , that's what makes the forum so lively , peoples different opinion s .Not much fun if we all agreed on everything .And you couldn't have picked two better guys to call greatest light heavy s in my opinion.