How Important is the Title Really?

Fighter A with the media hype of couse. Also Fighter A as champ did clean out the divsion, so you could give credit for that.

Fighter B would go down as I suppose a Harry Wills or a Lew Tendler. Still great and talk about, but never up there with Jack Dempsey or Benny Leonard(Though Benny did give Tendler 2 trys at the title.)

 

Obviously, Fighter A. He became champ and for a time was the baddest man on the planet. Plus he put butts in seats!

 

Fighter A. Everyone trains harder to beat the champ.

 

I say B is better than A, if he beats A before losing the title to C. The real winner here, though would be C. That is, of course, if A and B are still in, or near, their primes at the times of their losses.

That was fun.

 

I kinda got that at the beginning. I was just trying to have some fun.

 

Well, of course a lot of it would come down to specifics and subjective assessment, but you would generally have to go with fighter A, because the championship does typically represent a benchmark for greatness, and fighters challenging for the title know that they're going in there for the ultimate prize in the sport, unlike ones who are simply fighting a backwoods match against a guy who's under-the-radar and has never fought for the title. When you're champion, you have a big "X" on your forehead and everyone is aiming for it. It takes something special to keep staving off top challengers on a consistent basis.

 

Fighter A. Who's to say Fighter B might not have bottle it when given the chance to fight for the title. Fighter A at least seized his opportunity.

 

A. He beat who he needed to beat.

 

Good point, but the fact that Charles was offered to fight for the heavyweight title 'instead' makes it a slightly different situation.

 

The title? Is that one of the many alphabet belts or is that the undisputed championship?