Would AJ becoming a 3x HW champ be more impressive than one continuous reign?

I remember hearing someone saying Robinson must be the greatest middleweight ever cos he was a 5 times middleweight champ. That sounded impressive as hell till it was pointed out that he had to lose the title 4 times before becoming a 5 times champ

 

When you fight the best you lose, simple as. It’s a highly impressive feat regaining the title and beating someone like Hrgovic would cement AJ as being a great heavyweight. That being said I do not think even if he achieves this he is of the caliber of Usyk, Fury, the Klitschkos, Lewis, Bowe, Tyson or Holyfield, the best heavyweights of the past 30 years. I put him and Wilder in a tier below them.

 

How is beating Wilder any different from beating the likes of Parker or Ruiz.

Wilder won his belt from Stiverne who won it when it was vacant anyway. Just because he had a few defences against the likes of Szpillka and Washington doesn’t make his reign impressive.

 

No, because a continuous reign would have meant beating Usyk.

However 3 times means he would have shown a lot of character - he doesn't lack for money and could easily have retired after the 2nd Usyk loss and breakdown after

 

No. Much harder to have a long continuous reign. With all the belts winning 3x isn't that impressive

 

He is a 2 time champ. He lost in an embarrassing way to Ruiz and then won the rematch with a very tentative performance. He would be viewed much much more favourably if he had dealt with Ruiz in the first fight rather than losing and winning it back.

Lennox Lewis is a good example, he avenged his losses but his status would be much higher without those losses.

 

Matchmaking in Ali and Robinsons day was a lot different…. They actually just fought the best available opponents - and didn’t try to negotiate their way into winning fights - the rules were the rules…. and in Robinsons era/case people fought so much more often…

It’s not comparable at all, those old guys were so tough and really did straight up have it harder.. If Floyd or Crawford fought 15 times a year instead of 1-2, they’d have lost - even if only due to bad timing.

 

AJ beat Parker and Martin who were reigning champs but I get what you mean. They were gifted their titles.

 

AJ is an also ran champion of the era.

It’s not at all impressive if he picks up another trinket down the line and not even that surprising considering his promoter has deep pockets and is all in on him.

None of it changes the fact he got chinned by a fat Mexican who hasn’t beaten anyone of note since.

He was completely and utterly outclassed by Usyk twice. He also went life and death with a 40 year old Wlad who was inactive thanks to being messed around by Fury for 18 months.

AJ’s claim to greatness is as paper thin as his ability to retain muscle mass post retirement.

 

Sleepy Joe and Charles Martin wearing a nappy, then taking a nap on the canvas.

Neither are classed as real champions. Just trinket holders.

Neither are within a million miles of a belt in a one belt or two belt era.

 

Absolutely not

lol

 

I already made that point about frequency of fighting (due to limitations of technology & revenue generation mechanisms) leading to losses here:

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...-continuous-reign.714739/page-2#post-22672677

I agree but my point is not SRR vs AJ but SRR with 0 losses vs SRR with those loses. To me the former is more impressive while the latter might make for a good comeback story & fighters generally agree too, which fighter says "hey I hope to lose the next fight so that I can regain the title & show the people I have what it takes to come back from a defeat"

 

It's like WWE on paper. I'm more impressed with Wlad and Wilder's long reigns than I am hearing about Ric Flair and John Cena being 16 time world champions for example. Being a 16 time world champion means you have more losses than Dereck Chisora.

 

No, with 4 belts available winning one multiple times isn't that great a feat. Couple that with this weak era and,,,just no.

 

Thanks for the clarification - in that case - I’d say generally it’s better to go undefeated. In some cases though, it shows the worth of the opponent if someone takes an L - and also makes way for another chance to prove one can make adjustments and overcome adversity (although this can be shown within a winning performance - its not quite the same)

I guess as with most things, there’s a lot of nuance and context to take into consideration.