Top ten Heavyweight champs based upon dominance of era

I know what London Prize Ring rules are. :good

And 117 rounds against two guys isn't dominance ... unless he knocked them down 117 times.

 

If you fought 117 rounds under LPR, then by definition there were 117 knockdowns.

It isn't rocket science.

 

A knockdown could be any fall ... you wrestle a guy to the ground, that's the end of the round. A guy misses and falls, that's time out.

For instance, if the Rousey fight last weekend had been under London Prize ring rules, (for those who saw it), when they went down in the first, that would've ended it. When she missed a punch in the second and went down, that would ended the round. And so on.

It doesn't mean flooring a guy with a punch 117 times.

I THINK YOU need to brush up. Jesus Christ. atsch:roll:

 

With respect, it is you who are claiming that the number of rounds is somehow indicative of the length of the fight, or the dominance of the winner.

Whether the rounds are being ended by knockdowns, throws, or falls, ten rounds could be a rapid blowout lasting a few minutes, or a bout lasting several hours.

The knockdowns could be equally distributed between the two fighters, or they could all be sustained by one fighter.

 

117 of anything is too much. Getting shoved to the ground 117 times isn't dominance.

In the case of Sullivan-Mitchell 2, it was fought in a driving rainstorm behind a barn, and the fight was called after 39 "rounds" with no winner. Only a few "sports" were in attendance, so nobody but the people there really knew what happened. Sullivan's people thought he won, Mitchell's people thought he did. But both sides decided to call a hault because they were getting rained on and nothing much was happening.

That's not "dominance."

The Kilrain fight went 75 rounds, and was fought in front of a couple hundred people. The first knockdown didn't occur until the seventh round. Before that, they were just falling down or wrestling. Kilrain had to be carried to his corner after the 65th "fall down." But it went on for another 10 "rounds."

And then Sullivan lost to Corbett in an actual fight.

You can write a thousand word book, but that isn't dominance.

Tyson stopping Spinks was dominance.

 

Official for anyone but you and him.:good

You know, like most people who follow boxing.

The Majority.

When it becomes common knowledge.

When it's the official "proven" number of defenses.

Not just two people saying so ... and one of the guys (you) is only regurgitating what someone else (Adam) said.

 

Sullivan missed out on his best-gloved match ups...I'd bump him off the list.

Tyson? His reign was a short one, and he did not fight Witherspoon. Down a few slots for me.

I'd move Wlad up. He ducked no one.

Frazier? A rather short title reign.

Lewis, I'd move up a bit.

 

This is not an area where the majority carries any weight. If the majority of people thing the earth is flat, it still doesn’t alter the balance of the evidence. I will entertain your position for a minute however.

Cyber Boxing Zone who you cite as a source, erroneously list Sullivan’s title reign as starting when he defeated Dominic McCaffrey. Presumably they must regard this encounter as a title fight therefore. I have never heard anybody suggest that the first fight with Herbert Slade was anything other than a title fight.

Even a brief look at contemporary sources shows you that the title was on the line in a lot of these so called “exhibitions”.

 

First of all, there was "no title."

Some people AT THE TIME thought Sullivan "earned" the right to be called champion when he beat Ryan. Some people AT THE TIME thought he "earned" the right to be called champion when he beat Mitchell. Some people AT THE TIME thought he "earned" the right to be called champion when he beat Kilrain.

There was NO RECOGNIZED UNDISPUTED WORLD HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION who John L. Sullivan knocked off to become undisputed world heavyweight champion himself.

He earned the tag over time.

Second, he went on a barnstorming tour in 1883 and 1884 across the U.S., with a group of guys he fought in every town, and when they got done with their SCHTICK, he'd offer anyone in the audience an opportunity to box him and if they went a certain length of time, he'd pay them some money.

There was no "title" on the line. The only thing "on the line" was a chance to make some money if they could last.

And, in the vast majority of cities over those two years, nobody came up from the audience when the exhibition was over. Because most people don't pay for a ticket to a show and decide in the middle of it to get into a brawl with someone on stage. And since they had no takers in most towns, they'd pack up and move on to the next town.

In some cities, a local guy would get coaxed to give it a try, or some drunk would feel like he was tough enough, and he'd get in the ring, and he'd get hit a couple times and it would be over. Because most people then, like now, aren't used to getting punched in the face.

For 120 plus years, everyone understood that was an exhibition tour. Everyone did. Sullivan did. His fans did. In interviews for the rest of his life, he didn't make it out to be anything other than that.

Now, "with a brief look at contemporary sources" (whatever the hell that means) you and Adam have decided that the nights when some dude who never fought before got into the ring with Sullivan and quit after he got hit a few times were WORLD HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPIONSHIP TITLE DEFENSES.

If John L. Sullivan made 33 consecutive title defenses, he'd have hyped it, his people would've hyped it, his fans would've hyped it, all the books written about him through history would've touted it, it would've become the major accomplishment of his career, it would've become a part of the sport's history and everyone would've been shooting for that number for the last 120 years. People could count up to 33 back then.

But nobody from Sullivan on down considered them as WORLD TITLE defenses, because THEY WEREN'T.

And trying to paint them a CENTURY LATER as something they weren't isn't being an historian. Which is probably why nobody has latched onto it (except you) since his book came out.