Do Long Reigns Indicate Greatness?

Stevie, so you would call the Sammy Serrano reign 'great'? I completely understand if someone happened to come up in a weak era. But this was not a weak era he reigned in, as Arguello was doing all the heavy lifting. Serrano just wouldn't defend against those with a pulse.

 

Depends on who you fight. If you constantly defend against the top opposition, like Wlad, Larry Holmes and Joe Louis did, than yes. If you defend against nobodies like Wilder, then nope.

Tyson Fury is the second longest reigning lineal heavyweight champion in history at this point. Is he great? He still need to prove it. Jack Dempsey was reigning for 7 years, but he had 3 years out of the ring at some point. High quality title defences need to go along with the lenght of your reign.

 

I belive that Sammy Serrano won the title from another good champion Ben Villaflor.

 

But sometimes depending on the era, there are no great challengers to prove your mettle against as champion, you just have to defend against the best available challengers, there is no going back or forward into time to face better challengers, not realistically possible.

 

I agree with you about Serrano.

 

He did. A bit worn out by that stage of the game and in fact, Serrano should have won the title in their first match that was ruled a draw by some home cooking in Honolulu. But that said, in Serrano's 17 title fights, I only see Villaflor, Lionel Hernandez and Roger Mayweather as worthy opponents. Maybe I'm being too critical, but in comparison to what Arguello was doing at the time, it should be noted.

 

I would say usually it does! Joe Louis and Muhammad Ali immediately come to mind. On the flip side Tommy Burns is an interesting name to throw out there. He had a long reign with many title defenses, but few today would call him an all time great. I do believe, at one time, Nat Fleischer ranked him in his top ten all time Heavyweights list.

 

Usually yes. If you’re a 4 time champion it means you probably lost a belt 3 times (looking at you Holyfield)

 

Tommy Burns actually only reigned for 34 months, so his 13 title defences are even more impressive.

 

I think it is a significant factor but being great is based on several factors

People normally knock longevity as having a "weak era" but is it weak or did the long time champion make it look weak? Is it really possible for an entire division to be devoid of talent for 5, 10, 15 years? Considering the temptations to party or underestimate an opponent and the threat of injuries and inevitability of aging I would say being a long term champion is more than a fluke

That said, in the four belt 17 weight class era it is possible to win a belt off of a titleholder who is not really worthy and then make title defenses against guys ranked in that organization who are not really a legitimate contender in the grand scheme. That said, normally with all of the calls to unify and weight jumpers I feel hanging on to a belt as the "weak link" title holder has become a little more difficult. Not saying a fighter cannot win an easy belt but I think it has gotten harder to hoard one. In the past you maybe had a champion win a belt in a smaller boxing market or was protected in their home country like an Ottke type. I cannot remember the last time a fighter really got away with that.

Every long reigning champ gets accused of ducking someone, it is impossible to get to everyone

I'd say I would factor longevity highly but it also needs to be matched with who you beat and how

That said thinking of longevity has also made me think about how we rate a great win at the moment versus a win that has lost some sheen. Joe Calzaghe beating Jeff Lacy was a huge deal when it happened, now a days Lacy has turned into a little bit of a punching bag historically speaking.

Or how about like a Larry Holmes vs Muhammad Ali situation. We say the win means dick because Ali was over the hill but Holmes' resume certainly looks better with the name on it, does that influence our opinion higher despite most of us saying the win shouldn't be seen as a huge victory

 

For sure, there are eras that are weak and it is true that one can only fight the challengers available. But, in such cases, it is wise not to fall into the trap of perceiving the resulting dominance beyond it being a good boxer amongst a shallow talent pool.

Other times, as has been pointed out elsewhere on the thread, it is a case of an alphabet titlist clinging to the path of least resistance.