There are three main methods of determining this: 1) Facing the best opposition (#1 vs. #2 is especially useful) 2) Being declared champion by the major boxing organizations 3) Linear (man who beat the man) Which one(s) do you prefer? And by the same token, which champion met ALL of the criteria best?
The fighter who faces the best oppostion will always be the peoples champion. Linear doesn't mean that much since the man only beat the man who beat the man who originally wouldn't face the 'Black Dynamites'. Please excuse my bad grammar, sentance construction etc. Furthermore boxing organisations and there ranking systems are often quite corrupt, this diminishes their worth to an extent.
This is a great question, and this isn't my final answer (I want to think about all three a bit more): 1) While I tend to agree with this criterion, it may have presented some problems regarding different eras in boxing. 2) This one likely held a bit more "water" in times past than it does today. 3) This kinda fits in with what I said in 1. In other words, did a person get a chance to beat the man in various time periods. Like I said, this deserves a little thought! I'll come out with a more definitive answer in a few days.
I think that it depends on the circumstances of an era. During periods where competition may have been a bit dry, beating the man and obtaining the lineal crown may have outweighed fighting the top #1 or #2 guys, if good opposition was scarce. Ex. Johnson beating Jeffries in 1910. On the otherhand, during a strong era such as the 70's or 90's, fighting an array of top contenders may have outweighed holding a lineal title, and certainly better than holding a paper title. Ex. Joe Frazier between 1968-1971. Finally, holding a title that was given to a champion soley on the basis of recognition by a governing body, doesn't seem to be the best way to get the respect of a true fan or expert in my opinion. Ex. Earnie Terrell's receiving the WBA title, or whichever version he held. Now to answer the final question which is " which champion met all of the above criteria " Although I can think of a few names, I'll just stick with one and give it to James Jeffries. Here's why: A. He won the lineal title by beating a recognized champion. B. The belt he held was universally recognized as THEE title. C. He fought the best ranked men for most of his reign. D. He retired leaving the public with little doubt as to the integrity of his reign with the possible exception of Jack Johnson, whom he later faced.
Thanks, I also agree with you that Louis was one of the men who definately met all the criteria mentioned. I just thought I'd throw out one name though.
It should be remembered that CT mentioned nothing about weight division - so the fans of the little dudes can chime in as well
I think Sam Langford was a good example of a non-champion whom people viewed as an elite fighter, and possibly deserving of a title .
Rocky Marciano. Joe Louis Perhaps Jim Jeff outside of Jack Johnson Ali of couse Liston perhaps. He clean his way to Patterson. Doesnt matter if he lost to Ali, he still face him. Holyfiled The lowerweights Cani Ross Armstrong Gans, Leonard Fitz Robinson outside of Burley Walker Greb Lougran Delaney maybe.
