Which Heavyweight Champion benefited most from weak competition?

I hate to say it, but a defence against Sam Langford or Joe Jeanette post Jeffries, could have truncated Johnsons title reighn somewhat.

 

A fight with Langford, or Jeanette for the title would have been great.

Mcvey, and Smith would also have been very good.

 

He didn't make enough defenses to qualify under the OP's criteria, but George Foreman's second reign was extremely weak. Foreman made Axel Schultz's career. Turns out Schultz wasn't that bad, but he wasn't that good, either. Crawford Grimsley? C'mon! Lou Savarese was probably the best guy George defended against, but he was lower top-ten at best. And Shannon Briggs did nothing to earn a shot except make himself a public name by fighting on USA's TNF regularly.

I'm a "lineal champion" "the man's gotta beat the man who beat the man" kind of guy, but Big George's 90's reign really made me question my convictions.

 

Also to add to that Holmes never faced Coetzee, Thomas or Page. I respect Holmes achievements but he should of faced at least one of these fighters.

 

?
Lewis Defended against :
Akiwande , Golota , Briggs , Holyfield (*2) , Grant , Tua , Rahman , Tyson and Vitali Klitschko.
He is the only long time champion who had a strong opposition , the strongest ever in fact , and it may stay such forever.

 

Add to that Mercer, McCall and Botha, and don't forget that Bowe ran from him like a girl.

 

Tough to say. I think I'll go with Sullivan, too, given the criteria established by the original poster. More a case of him being a league above most of his available challengers, though.

Burns would be an easy choice, and he was up there, but the two fights with O'Brien both help his cause. Plus, Squires was actually favored to beat Burns the first time around, and Flynn, while not amazing, was at least capable of producing a decent result against good competition once in a while. Yeah, he ducked Johnson for a while and the other members of the Original Black Murderers' Row, but Johnson studiously avoided his fellow Row members, too- and might be a candidate for this title as well as a result.

 

The first fight with O Brien was actually a unification bout.

 

I'm really going to start something with this one I'm sure but here goes (and I'm only putting this out there to stimulate debate so no cutting remarks please)...

but the first one that sprung to mind for me is Muhammad Ali!! hahahaha

when you say "benefited from weak competition" - there were the obvious big names on his roster but it did pad out his record having alot of bull in there aswell

Reign 1 :

a dodgy bogus fight versus Liston (so in effect Liston doesn't count as a good opponent), an old and bad back stricken Patterson who was a sitting duck yet still went 12 rounds (not really any danger in that one at all - again a good 'name' but not really any competition for him at the time), Chuvalo - Iron chin but a journeyman nontheless, Cooper and Brian London on the world stage were seen as bums unfortunately for us brits - again not really competition, that leaves an average german Mildenberger, Cleve Williams minus half his insides after coming back from police shooting, and and oldish looking Zora Folley

Reign 2:

Chuck Wepner!!!, Ron Lyle (fair enough - a real threat - that's one), Joe Bugner!!, the old Frazier - the real Frazier whooped him when it really mattered, Jean Pierre Coopman!!!, Jimmy Young (gave Ali fits - and was given the benefit of the doubt by many), Richard Dunn!!!, Ken Norton (fair enough - but again probably could've been given the decision without an argument - and only made his 'name by beating Ali the first time anyhow - prior to which he was an unknown club fighter), Alfredo Evangelista!!!!, Earnie Shavers (fair enough - one of the most dangerous men in history - but again I think clearly took the decision), then went for another 7 fight baby in Neon Leon and came unstuck.

so over two reigns I'd say yeah 3 can be classed as 'dangerous' opponents for Ali (Lyle, Norton and Shavers - 2 of which might of taken a decision from him)

BUT THE OTHER 15 WERE PRETTY POOR/WEAK COMPETITION FOR A GUY OF HIS CALIBRE WEREN'T THEY??

 

Lewis title defences actually were against: Grant, Botha, Tua, Rahman, Tyson, Klitschko

Not that impressive. He only won the hw title against Holyfield. Before that he was just a beltholder.

 

Now that someone's listed Ali II< I think we've indicted every long term HW champion.

One point---ducking is not the issue. A fighter's record is exactly what it is. It doesn't really matter if Tyson, for example, cleaned house. The house didn't have any first rate HWs in it. It's a factual issue not a moral one.

 

I'd say they were a better bunch than Ali's shitty comp overall - infact I'd say the likes of Tua, Rahman, Tyson, Klit were very good comp - certainly they were all capable of Kayoing Lewis at any given moment - compared with the likes of the Brian Londons and the Chuck Wepners and the Jean Pierre Coopmans and Evangelista's etc etc of Ali's reign(s) I think Lewis' title defence comp pips Ali's and then some:good

 

Rahman actually did. :good

 

It's not ali's fault that Joe Frazier didnt last long as elite competition, maybe that is why ali is considered the better fighter all time. There is a reason ali is considered the best heavyweight, because he fought everyone from his era.

 

Too many early champs to list.


Today, the Klits without any doubt at all. Worst era imaginable relative to the quality and talent and number of large sized athletes on the planet. 100% crap division led by a couple decently conditioned "B" athletes (MOST generously (overly so) attributed) with size fighting mostly out of shape "C" and "D" level opposition.

Completely laughable talent pool - "the war years" - when ALL of the ABLE bodied men were in other sports.