Who's the Champ?

[cross_trainer]

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?

[Sweet Science]

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.

[ChrisPontius]

I thought you were gonna call out other posters here and remind them of the alphabet titles you won.

[RoccoMarciano]

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?


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.

[mr. magoo]

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.

[KTFO]

The fighter who faces the best oppostion will always be the peoples champion.




That's a myth.

[Sweet Science]

That's a myth.

How so?

[KTFO]

How so?



Read the General Forum. :yep

[Sweet Science]

Read the General Forum. :yep

I must admit I never have.

Never even posted there.

[RoccoMarciano]

That's a myth.

Have any thoughts regarding the question posed?

[Sweet Science]

And by the same token, which champion met ALL of the criteria best?

Iron Mike Tyson met all of the criteria best.

[mr. magoo]

Very good post, i totally agree with you.



Joe Louis also is to be mentioned. He faced every opponent available, had THE title which at the time was run by the only recognized boxing organisation. The same counts for Marciano, Frazier, Ali, Holyfield, Lewis.

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.

[RoccoMarciano]

It should be remembered that CT mentioned nothing about weight division - so the fans of the little dudes can chime in as well :)

[mr. magoo]

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 .

[Dempsey1238]

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.

[mr. magoo]

Really? Did he face Lewis in the 90s? No, he fought Seldon instead. So, sorry no he doesn´t quite fit in the he met all worthy challengers list.

In all fairness,
Tyson's true reign as lineal champion, was during the late 80's. During this period he met all of the above listed criteria that CT asked for:

1. He fought all top contenders

2. He defeated the recognized lineal champ(s)

3. He held all governing belts.

You can argue that he didn't face all the best fighters of the 90's, but then he wasn't exactly viewed as the lineal champion by this point either.

[Dempsey1238]

The 80's I agree with Tyson in that regard.

[Sweet Science]

Really? Did he face Lewis in the 90s? No, he fought Seldon instead. So, sorry no he doesn´t quite fit in the he met all worthy challengers list.

:lol:

You're starting to look a little silly now, just disagreeing with me just for the sake of it. The two posters above seem to agree with my pick as they have slightly more intelligence and realise I was talking about Iron Mike Tyson (his first incarnation pre prison as lineal champ). Though I suppose they have nothing against me and are able analyse my posts impartially.

Take heed brother, take heed.

[mr. magoo]

:lol:

You're starting to look a little silly now, just disagreeing with me just for the sake of it. The two posters above seem to agree with my pick as they have slightly more intelligence and realise I was talking about Iron Mike Tyson (his first incarnation pre prison). Though I suppose they have nothing against me and are able analyse my posts inpartially.

???

LOL...

All joking asside, this is a good thread and there are a lot of good responses from everyone.

[mr. magoo]

Well, he meant you guys are more intelligent than me. If it´s his oppinion it´s okay with me, i know who wrote it.

Don't sweat it dude,

It's all good. :good

[RoccoMarciano]

Well, he meant you guys are more intelligent than me. If it´s his oppinion it´s okay with me, i know who wrote it.

I don't think anybody is saying/writing that. You make some great points in my opinion!

[Sweet Science]

???

LOL...

All joking asside, this is a good thread and there are a lot of good responses from everyone.

Apologies, I meant vastly greater intelligence.:thumbsup

[Sweet Science]

Obviously it is. I don´t care what a guy from Britain which i never met thinks of me and i´m not here to make friends but to learn and discuss :good

Don't worry brother, I'll teach you. You can be my student.

I'm always happy to school you. Just remember to call me Sir :lol:

[cross_trainer]

Armstrong


Armstrong may be the best single example, since he defeated EVERY top fighter in a specific time frame and weightclass range decisively, holding all of the belts in the process after nabbing them from linear opponents.

[TBooze]

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)

?

This day and age you make your own champion it is just as good method as any other.