Do Long Reigns Indicate Greatness?

Its entirely situational. There isn't a right answer to this question.

 

It's rare when there are a lot of great fighters in one division. So, yes, lengthy reigns are important.

The longer you watch boxing, the more you see guys winning titles by barely edging someone on the cards. They win a title, "maybe" make a couple defenses, then they're gone, because they were never really a dominant fighter to begin with, and then the next guy who barely wins replaces them.

So many titlists in boxing (most really) are just good fighters who had a small edge over a guy here or there. Most champions throughout history weren't really dominant. If you aren't dominant, you're also prone to losing your title in an upset to a longshot underdog.

About the only way for dominant fighters, like Bob Foster, for example, who didn't have another elite light heavyweight challenger to go against in his era, to show how "great" they are is to put together a long reign.

Bob Foster's title challengers weren't great light heavys AT ALL. Most aren't even remembered for much other than getting knocked out by Bob Foster. But he trudged along, knocking off the likes of Tommy Hicks, Frankie DePaula, Hal Carroll ... and Foster's a Hall of Famer based on his long, dominant reign at 175 against largely average (to below average) competition. That's it. (Certainly not for his stints at heavyweight).

Fans today are quick to say "so and so" is a bum. But, honestly, you have to be fairly dominant in some manner over nearly everyone else in your weight class to string together a long reign.

 

I agree. Brian Mitchell made 12 successful defenses (all abroad because banned for defending in South Africa) against pretty average competition. He showed such great skills and seemed to improve over his reign that he is considered to be the greatest South African fighter of all time (no mean feat) and is in the HOF.

 

True. Like I posted it is not the fault of a champion if inferior challengers are around in his era. But it does take training, skill, focus and desire to win and keep the title against anybody.

 

Right.

And even great fighters don't always beat "everyone they're supposed to beat."

Guys who "aren't great" certainly don't.

 

Agreed. I happen to think that Virgil Hill was a great fighter for that reason, even if he didn’t beat super elite competition

 

Conversely, when they are available and the champ simply doesn’t step up to the plate it’s apparent. For example, Alexis Arguello defended his 130 pound title against Escalera, Chacon, Castillo, Navarrete and Limon while his counterpart Sammy Serrano had a lengthy reign against none of them. But a whole lot of defenses against the Tae Ho Kim’s and the Young Hos and the Battlehawk Kazamas.

 

Definitely - no.
I'll take Wlad as an example, and his 18 (eighteen) title defense reign. Only Joe Louis with 25, and Holmes with 20 defenses of the HW Champion title had more.

This content is protected

As you can see in the HW ATG list in front of Wlad are:
- Lewis, Frazier, and Tyson with 9 title defenses
- Foreman and Holyfield with 3 title defenses
- Johnson with (I think) 8 title defenses
...
It is also important who you are fighting with, as well as the strength of the competition you are fighting with.

 

Yes, Those are good examples but then it is sometimes the fault of the fight promoters or the two camps, as one side wants more money, back then it appeared to be the case. And also the faults of the respective boxing organizations to sanction those bouts as it depends who is a mandatory challenger, back then no money was used to make a no.1 challenger step aside like in present times, but I do see your point.

 

I agree he was a good fighter. The question though was one of greatness.

 

It is interesting to see how many here champion the difficulty of focus & consistency required vs being switched on for one exceptional opponent, & how many would remember this when discussing Ali vs Louis in legacy.

 

Quality of opposition is critical but length of reign, factoring in activity has value based on mental strength and conditioning.

 

Long reigns are an 'indicator' but not a slam dunk in the 'Greatness' stakes.

If the reign was meted out against modest-to-poor opposition, then while this might still be noteworthy, it's not a sure sign of being extra-special.

Quality of opposition and demonstrating a high level of performance against other world class competitors, who actually bring a challenge, has everything to do with Greatness.

 

I would give this one a "Yes" Fergie. Longevity is one of the criteria all time greats are judged on. Even if most of the opposition is n't that great e.g. Larry Holmes' reign.

 

This was the era of the WBA's bagman Pepe Cordero accepting a bag of cash to elevate a fighter into a title fight. Bob Arum admitted this in a lengthy piece in Ring Magazine back then. There were many complicit, but in the end, Serrano held a very tainted title. As I said, the top contenders were there, but Serrano avoided them like a turd on a walking path (sorry, couldn't come up with a better analogy). And that was OK with the WBAgman.