How long at the top?

[wmute]

Virgil Hill

yes! i did not even notice he won a vacant wba cruiserweight belt. just found out boxrec. virgil hill was a good fighter...

[wmute]

Sugar Ray Robinson fought champs and contenders for 25 years!!!!
From 1940 to 1965 was his career span and from 40 to 51 ran off 91 wins in a row!

p4p the best was invented to describe him, that's how great he was!

i think we all know that but having won title fights "only" from 46 to 58 he does not qualify in this particular list.

[wmute]

I meant major titles (you guys read my mind). and I would not know go which way to go with the wbo. hard to say when it started to matter... benn-eubank time?

[wmute]

George Foreman
Roberto Duran
Virgil Hill
Bernard Hopkins
Manny Pacquiao
Floyd Mayweather Jr.

who am I missing?

a surprising (to me at least) addition

[BKM-2010]

just checked all 3. none of them actually.

Well Holyfield won his first title in 86 at CW, and lost his last title against Ruiz in 2001. So that's 15 years.

Toney would have had 14 year span if he didn't test positive after beating Ruiz.

[wmute]

Well Holyfield won his first title in 86 at CW, and lost his last title against Ruiz in 2001. So that's 15 years.

Toney would have had 14 year span if he didn't test positive after beating Ruiz.

15 years minus a few months to be precise. but mostly...

I am specifically interested about the distance between title fight wins, not attempts. sorry if it was unclear.

Toney... yes but that was a NC. have to stick to that, and it would be less than 15 anyways (Ruiz possibly prevented two ATG from entering this list! one more reason to dislike the guy).

[- Ram Raid -]

He did, but I still feel he won his first legit title in 2006 with the second Byrd fight.

Yet, as you did with the WBO there are some who would level similar claims at the IBF, as an organisation of course, the calibre of title holders has been pretty stellar since Holmes gave them a jump start. Your point opens up more of a discussion and turns the issue into less of a statistical exercise.

The question could also be read as being two pronged though. Dominant fighters that have had a long reign. If you take 2006 as a starting point for Wlad (I'll come back to this) becoming a legit title holder, at that point he still wasn't the dominant heavyweight champion. His brother was and it's been the case that for the majority of his reign, including the WBO if you prefer, that he hasn't been the dominant champion in his division. And I don't say that to downplay his achievements in any way, the man is remarkable.

I guess it comes down to how much comparative legitimacy you give someone's run when there's a plethora of belts and how much credibility you give to the sanctioning bodies. I'd argue that Louis' reign from 1937-1949 is more impressive because there weren't other avenues to a championship, he had to dominate the full division to keep his belt and whoever wanted it had to come through him.

Take away the dominant aspect though, the ability to win bouts at championship level (however defined!) over a 15 year span is pretty damn special. I think the likes of Foreman and Duran resonates more than Mayweather because they lost it and got it back. There's a redemptive every-man quality there that's easier to identify with. It inspires.

As for the WBO I tend to hold it at a length between acceptance and dismissal. It's like the Premiership fourth spot for Champions League qualification. You've just slipped in the door but there are other factors to consider if you're to be deemed a legitimate big player. And for me it's whether it suits my biased agenda or not. I would lean to dismiss it outright but if I did that it would effect the standing of Eubank, Collins and Calzaghe. The latter's reign would go from 11 years to a stuttering 2.

[LacedUp]

Yet, as you did with the WBO there are some who would level similar claims at the IBF, as an organisation of course, the calibre of title holders has been pretty stellar since Holmes gave them a jump start. Your point opens up more of a discussion and turns the issue into less of a statistical exercise.

The question could also be read as being two pronged though. Dominant fighters that have had a long reign. If you take 2006 as a starting point for Wlad (I'll come back to this) becoming a legit title holder, at that point he still wasn't the dominant heavyweight champion. His brother was and it's been the case that for the majority of his reign, including the WBO if you prefer, that he hasn't been the dominant champion in his division. And I don't say that to downplay his achievements in any way, the man is remarkable.

I guess it comes down to how much comparative legitimacy you give someone's run when there's a plethora of belts and how much credibility you give to the sanctioning bodies. I'd argue that Louis' reign from 1937-1949 is more impressive because there weren't other avenues to a championship, he had to dominate the full division to keep his belt and whoever wanted it had to come through him.

Take away the dominant aspect though, the ability to win bouts at championship level (however defined!) over a 15 year span is pretty damn special. I think the likes of Foreman and Duran resonates more than Mayweather because they lost it and got it back. There's a redemptive every-man quality there that's easier to identify with. It inspires.

As for the WBO I tend to hold it at a length between acceptance and dismissal. It's like the Premiership fourth spot for Champions League qualification. You've just slipped in the door but there are other factors to consider if you're to be deemed a legitimate big player. And for me it's whether it suits my biased agenda or not. I would lean to dismiss it outright but if I did that it would effect the standing of Eubank, Collins and Calzaghe. The latter's reign would go from 11 years to a stuttering 2.

Absolutely, and I think too that it took a wee time for the IBF to get fully accepted too. I wasn't around at the time, but I know the difference between the two is that the IBF quickly gained credible and respected champions who were already champions like Larry Holmes and Marvin Hagler - in very prominent divisions.

They chose to give up belts to fight for the IBF, whereas others would fight for the WBO and give it up to fight for something else.

I agree that either way it's impressive - and I'm taking anything away from Wlad, I just didn't regard him as a world champion then, so why should I now? He just happened to fight for a belt nobody really cared about. Like winning the Europa League doesn't make you a European champion if you now what I mean? I guess we are some way around the same wavelength, but it is weird to think about when you take the likes of Calzaghe, Eubank into the consideration.

But as I said and have said, I feel it's the champion that makes the belt not the belt that makes the champion. And I feel that applies very much to Klitschko and his WBO "reign". The opponents he fought aren't exactly what you'd call top class either.

[- Ram Raid -]

Absolutely, and I think too that it took a wee time for the IBF to get fully accepted too. I wasn't around at the time, but I know the difference between the two is that the IBF quickly gained credible and respected champions who were already champions like Larry Holmes and Marvin Hagler - in very prominent divisions.

They chose to give up belts to fight for the IBF, whereas others would fight for the WBO and give it up to fight for something else.

I agree that either way it's impressive - and I'm taking anything away from Wlad, I just didn't regard him as a world champion then, so why should I now? He just happened to fight for a belt nobody really cared about. Like winning the Europa League doesn't make you a European champion if you now what I mean? I guess we are some way around the same wavelength, but it is weird to think about when you take the likes of Calzaghe, Eubank into the consideration.

But as I said and have said, I feel it's the champion that makes the belt not the belt that makes the champion. And I feel that applies very much to Klitschko and his WBO "reign". The opponents he fought aren't exactly what you'd call top class either.

I think your last paragraph pretty much gets to the heart of the matter. As with other areas of life it's often the person holding the title that gives the title legitimacy, or not. Henry Kissinger winning a Nobel Peace Prize springs to mind!

This is ever more so in the modern fight game where there are so many competing claims to legitimacy. It's gotten to the point of organisational schizophrenia. It's little wonder that the fan-base seems increasingly unhinged. Other sports have universally recognised title holders or a single organised ranking system that encompasses the whole sport. Boxing has become untethered. It's not anchored any more.

Maybe it's the most modern of sports in that aspect. So much of contemporary culture consists of multiple en****** making the same claims whilst vying for our attention.

In the long run though, with the plethora of belts and champions and their increasing tendency to avoid each other, with the nutritional advances that are in play, with champions like Wladimir laying a path away from boxing's archaic training methods towards ones that aren't so damaging on the body, 10 and 15 year spans between championship wins will become less and less remarkable.

[Anthony342]

But 10-15 years holding the same title will still be remarkable IMO.