Wladimir Klitschko now holds the record for the longest reign in HW boxing history

All in all, who of the guys you've shared a ring with impressed you the most? I don't really care much if it's off topic, because this stuff is fascinating. I feel a bit jealous sometimes, honestly, but then I'm like, "Nah, nah. I'm fine with not being hit by them."

 

:yep

My thoughts too.

I'll live vicariously through Magna and take his word for what he says. :yep

Here's an interesting article on sparring partners

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/tenworstjobs-2-sparringpartner.htm

 

--You got me on that contradictory notion. That's a good point. I would say that the recognized body is recognized so long as it is reasonable. Now that of course, carries a risk of being arbitrary. But there are other examples I could offer where The Ring (pre-Collins) failed to recognized the result of a 1 vs. 2 and instead recognized someone else and so were corrected.

The rise of the racketeers demand that we tighten up the criteria in the face of their chaos. And I fail to understand how or why some accept a fighter avoiding the #2 and still earning recognition.

But to heck with what I think about Wlad. Try this guy!

http://www.thesweetscience.com/news/articles/15566-why-wlad-isnt-king

--What a bold font of wisdom he is!

 

Excuse that, please.

I'd tend to agree. But that isn't the point.

 

Slow down, man. It isn't that bad. Robinson is recognized in mine. The standard for recognition from the first Queensberry bout until 1920 is one, from 1920-circa 1963 is another, and from 1963 forward, yet another. To use the same standard for the three major eras would be dim-witted.

 

So since the proliferation of belts would you say every one of your champions is there by virtue of 1v2?

I have no problem with your system by the way, I just don't think it is historically justifiable to rewrite history and dismiss certain championship claims.

Your way is ideal and it's unfortunate it isn't the way today but the reality is it isnt.

I loved your essay btw, I don't agree with it but I liked the cut of your jib.

 

I'm at ease. :smoke

 

For me a champ is more about unifying than anything else. The greatest champions unify the claims in their division.

 

Yes, though there were a few difficulties because The Ring failed to recognized Jr. divisions. It's as consistent as hell.

I'm the last person who wants to tell a champion that he isn't. As far as he knows, he is and he bled for it. Those bleeping mutha bleepers who ruined the successions for 50 years are to blame and I wish they all had one neck.

I distinguish one from the other to let the belted champions call themselves champions and be called champions. I think that the term has been compromised anyway but can leave that unsaid so as not to hurt anyone. I call the true champions something different and think it works.

Listen, all I know is that the nonsense has to stop.

 

'Unify' what?!

 

You are plain speaking with inside knowledge. My hat is doffed.

 

not really. fans a hundred years from now will read about him, look up his fights and go ugh, his competition was almost all old, out of shape or not aggressive enough to test him.

 

Marciano
Jeffries

Lennox Lewis
Joe Louis
Jack Johnson

Sonny Liston
(is it really a fighter's fault if his competition is so intimidated they won't take risks to win?)

 

Accolades!