The greatest title in the whole world???

Great list by the thread starter, reading it I realised just how many champions I have seen and how many I've met and interviewed....makes me feel old. In all seriousness, the heavyweight lineage was all but diluted since Ali's retirement, but the best heavyweight in the division has often been easily distinguished, Holmes was the greatest heavyweight on the planet in the early to mid 80s with Tyson doing the job in the dying years of the decade. In the 90s it was Holyfield, Bowe and Lewis, with Lewis eventually gaining the upperhand at the end of the decade and the start of the new millennium. Since then, for the last 6-7 years, the Klitschko's have reigned supreme, so yes, the situation is more fractured than pre-Spinks but every generation has had it's defining heavyweight CHAMPION, the TITLISTS do not matter. Just the way I see things anyway. You make some very good points. It is a sad state of affairs that boxing's biggest title is seemingly lost. The Klitschkos have turn a sterling job of trying to unify the division but below the top 2, it is a very weak list of names. David Haye has all the talent in the world but lacks the heart and the likes of Povetkin and other Euro heavies are good, technically gifted boxer but lack the edge to compete against the Klitschkos.

In terms of prestige amongst the fans the governing bodies have diluted themselves into near irrelevance. Thats the thing, when Marciano, Louis, Ali, Holmes and Tyson were champs the WHOLE world knew...but 15 recent heavyweight champions could walk down Main Street USA right now and no one would recognize them..

On that note, I feel it sucks for some fighters to be in the shadows while actually reigning as a champion. I mean, take Floyds division right now. With no disrespect to them whatsoever, it is just a fact that no other "champion" in the same weight class as him can really be taken seriously if they claim this or that becsause the fact is there is but ONE world and there is no dispute whatsoever that he is the champion of it in his weight class.

The fact that I've met 33 heavyweight champions in my day is cool and all but...there shouldn't even be that many available for me to meet!!!!! Boxing politics (i.e. the WBC) have created the situation we are in today and it is a huge mess that our game will NEVER get out of. FLASHBACK: In 1978 Muhammad Ali lost the world heavyweight title to Leon Spinks. Rather than face Ken Norton in his first title defense Spinks opted to defend against Ali. The WBC then stripped Ali of the title and AWARDED IT to Ken Norton, who then turned around and lost it to Larry Holmes, setting in motion the situation that we have today in regards to the heavyweight division. The result, in my opinion, has completely diluted the world heavyweight title, once known as the greatest single title in all of sports, maybe second only to the President of the United States of America. (The following two lists do not include James Toney, who was stripped of the WBA title after beating Ruiz. It also doesn't include the multiple reigns of repeat champions (Tyson, Moorer, Bowe, etc) because it's just too diluted and confusing. In the first 93 years of heavyweight champions only two men (Patterson and Ali) regained the heavyweight title. Just since 1978, though, (I can't keep track 100 percent without looking it up), there have been at least nine men who have regained a portion of the heavyweight crown.) From the beginning of professional boxing up until the WBC decided to strip Spinks for giving Ali his rightful return match, there were 28 recognized WORLD HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPS from 1885-1978 (that's 93 years and includes bare knuckle champs): Sullivan, Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Jeffries, Hart, Burns, Johnson, Willard, Dempsey, Tunney, Schmeling, Sharkey, Carnera, Baer, Braddock, Louis, Charles, Walcott, Marciano, Patterson, Johanssen, Liston, Terrel, Ali, Ellis, Frazier, Foreman, Spinks... ...as compared to 46 WORLD HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPS from 1978-2013 (only 35 years!!): Norton, Holmes, Tate, Weaver, Dokes, Coetzee, Witherspoon, Thomas, Page, Tubbs, Spinks, Berbick, Tyson, Smith, Tucker, Damiani, Douglas, Holyfield, Mercer, Moorer, Bowe, Lewis, Morrison, Bent, Hide, McCall, Seldon, Akinwande, Bruno, Vitaliy, Wladimir, Byrd, Ruiz, Rahman, Jones Jr., Sanders, Brewster, Valuev, Liakovich, Ibragimov, Peter, Maskaev, Chagaev, Briggs, Haye, Povetkin. In other words, there have been 18 more world heavyweight champions in the last 35 years than there were in the previous 93! And this doesn't even include all the times the title has changed hands since Holmes won his in 1978 (Holyfield won and lost it how many times?) Great post,,, That is why i chuckle when people say floyd, manny, roy, etc have fought all these champions,,,, Back in the day guys like ortiz, ghost, canelo, diaz, del valle, etc would not have been champions... Its so laughable when posters say a certain star is the best, he fought 19 or whatever champs,,, So stupid, but thats what you get in NSB,, guys who try and talk like experts but wasnt even watching boxing when manny beat MAB or floyd beat genaro, yet they claim that these guys are the greatest ever having defeated all these "champions" in recent years,, and no disrespect to genaro and mab,, those guys were true champions,,,,

Great list by the thread starter, reading it I realised just how many champions I have seen and how many I've met and interviewed....makes me feel old. In all seriousness, the heavyweight lineage was all but diluted since Ali's retirement, but the best heavyweight in the division has often been easily distinguished, Holmes was the greatest heavyweight on the planet in the early to mid 80s with Tyson doing the job in the dying years of the decade. In the 90s it was Holyfield, Bowe and Lewis, with Lewis eventually gaining the upperhand at the end of the decade and the start of the new millennium. Since then, for the last 6-7 years, the Klitschko's have reigned supreme, so yes, the situation is more fractured than pre-Spinks but every generation has had it's defining heavyweight CHAMPION, the TITLISTS do not matter. Just the way I see things anyway.

I think the sanctioning bodies should have a duty to encourage unification. That's the best we can hope for in this day and age, short of them all going bust. Interim and "regular" titles really need to go. How can the WBA alone have two heavyweight "champions" at a time? It's bizarre.

The WBA Belt is my favorite. The classic black leather strap is a thing of beauty.

This is why Tyson deserves such credit. He gave the division a level of stability that it hadn't enjoyed for over a decade. Before he even dealt with Spinks, he made the point of beating all the other ABC titlists and establishing himself as the clear and number one threat to the "true champion."

In terms of prestige amongst the fans the governing bodies have diluted themselves into near irrelevance. Would it effect Floyd Mayweather's standing if he was stripped of/or vacated his titles tomorrow? I've started to see titles mainly as a means of exposure for lesser known boxers. For established fighters; who they've fought; how they've fought; and who they've beaten is of far more significance than whether a de-valued belt is holding up their pants.

I think it was Tarver and Glen Johnson who said "Screw the sanctioning bodies. we're going to fight anyway."

The alphabet groups are never going to voluntarily shut themselves down so that there can only be one governing body. There's too much money to be made in sanctioning fees.

+1 I actually don't mind 4 world titles per division, but having world titles within world titles is taking the proverbial. Boxing can be made much simpler. Each division should have a: World Champ North AMerican champ South American champ european champ african champ asian/pan pacific champ No interims.super, blah blah. The 5 regional champs must be ranked in the top 10. World champ must fight 2-3x per year- at least 1 defensesagainst #1 ranked mando.

The WBA regular champion is the biggest sham of all. +1 I actually don't mind 4 world titles per division, but having world titles within world titles is taking the proverbial.

The WBA regular champion is the biggest sham of all. It's all about enforcing the rules. If guys like Mayweather don't have to fight mandatories then what's the purpose of becoming his mandatory? Take 154 for example: Erislandy Lara is Floyd's mandatory. We all know that Floyd isn't fighting Lara. So either Lara can be a "regular champion" or he can be a mandatory and fight tough contenders until Floyd decides to vacate or retire. They're not going to strip him. If rules were enforced like they were supposed to, I agree, the Super/Regular champ thing is stupid. Since they aren't, this is the way they have to do it.

Iceman, Truer words have not been spoken unfortunately. sadly I'm not sure having people that love boxing is enough...I mean, hasnt Suleiman been in charge of the WBC for a thousand years or something?. He was at the helm back when we had one clear champ. Since boxing lost a lot of its mass appeal, the sanctioning bodies and everyone down the line did what they did to stay afloat and relevant. I'm hoping we are just in a phase where many many players get whittled down to a few and we get back to the best fighting the best.

The WBA regular champion is the biggest sham of all.

You need people who love BOXING...not business...to be in charge. No one who LOVES boxing would even think of creating a super title, regular title, silver titles, emeritus title, etc. And they certainly wouldnt dream of allowing more than one champ in the same division under the same sanction body (at one time the WBA had THREE middleweight champs!) yeah but money >>>>>>>>>> love

You need people who love BOXING...not business...to be in charge. No one who LOVES boxing would even think of creating a super title, regular title, silver titles, emeritus title, etc. And they certainly wouldnt dream of allowing more than one champ in the same division under the same sanction body (at one time the WBA had THREE middleweight champs!)

good info but what can we do to change this? i guess its being bigger than the belt...........

all the different sanctioning bodies screwed up boxing from its glory days, that's a given. Titles, especially the HW title, have lost most of the meaning they used to come attached with.