Which current Heavyweight champion is most legitimate?

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

You dont have to big Martin up much if Ruiz and Stiverne are the ones being compared .

Did you figure out its illogical to state someone like Izu has bad stamina on one fight when they only had 17 fights yet to base that conclusion on ?


You dont get better stamina unless you have more fights particularly if you are ending fights quickly bc stamina is gained with IN ring experience !He was EXPOSED doe ?

😭😭😭You’re so ******ed.
Yes! You have bad stamina if you gas inside five rounds against Brezeale.
Was his chin not Exposed???
Was his stamina not Exposed???
Where technical flaws in his game not Exposed???

Keep telling everyone how Charles Martin is some kind of great fighter😭😭😭😭
Pathetic.

[Dr Rumack]

Martin is garbage by today's standards but back in the 70s he'd have been comparable to someone like Joe Frazier.

[techliam]

Parker is irrelevant. The WBO heavyweight title has never been considered equal to the others.

Wilder has the most prestigious belt, but Joshua has the WBA and the IBF, so you have to consider him the most legitimate heavyweight champion.

Probably AJ due to his having 2 belts although Wilder's is the most prestigious.

I keep hearing this, but never seen a genuine defence of this argument

How is the WBC belt more prestigious than say the WBA belt? History's greats have nearly all held the WBA belt, if not more than the WBC. Yes the WBA have given us two champions per division, but anyone worth their salt only recognise their Super belt, which we should use to monitor the WBA lineage. The two belts scenario isn't a stain on the WBA World Championship, rather than a huge stain on the organisation, which the WBC also has major problems..

Especially in today's Boxing, where we have 4 belts of equal reward.. the adage definitely applies: 'the champion makes the belt, not the other way around'. It should never be the case that a champion is seen as more 'legitimate' due to some anecdotal notion of 'prestige'. Bizarre

[GGG Gloveking]

I keep hearing this, but never seen a genuine defence of this argument

How is the WBC belt more prestigious than say the WBA belt? History's greats have nearly all held the WBA belt, if not more than the WBC. Yes the WBA have given us two champions per division, but anyone worth their salt only recognise their Super belt, which we should use to monitor the WBA lineage. The two belts scenario isn't a stain on the WBA World Championship, rather than a huge stain on the organisation, which the WBC also has major problems..

Especially in today's Boxing, where we have 4 belts of equal reward.. the adage definitely applies: 'the champion makes the belt, not the other way around'. It should never be the case that a champion is seen as more 'legitimate' due to some anecdotal notion of 'prestige'. Bizarre

This is why the WBC is going to put Floyd on their belts and end any debate.

How can you argue with TBE?

[Deus]

This is why the WBC is going to put Floyd on their belts and end any debate.

How can you argue with TBE?

Honestly to me that kind of shows weak the WBC are... they seem to constantly bend to the will of their biggest champions; past and present. It comes across like the desperate girlfriend that will do anything to keep you happy.

Don't even get me started on their 'special' belts too, just shows the WBC are as much a joke as the rest of the orgs.

[LA_2_Vegas]

(Fury)

Joshua - it's how he had to beat Wlad. I thought Wlad looked great in that fight as well so I didn't consider him a complete shell of himself. Anyway, AJ got up off the floor and come back to get the TKO. That fight will go down with some of the best of the last decade, definitely added legitimacy to that portion of the title.

[Dean_Razorback]

right now? joshua, no doubts

[aretrospective]

It's definitely AJ at this point, and it's not even close.

The "Prestige" of the belts they all hold is irrelevant. The question is "Which HW champ is the most legitimate?" The answer has to be the one who has beaten the best competition - which is Joshua. His win vs Klitschko on it's own is better than anyone else's combined resume (Tyson Fury excluded - but as he's not currently active I'm not considering him).

[boliodogs]

Stiverne was about a number 10 ranked heavyweight by most places and he is the best heavyweight Wilder ever fought. That doesn't make Wilder the man because before Stiverne his opposition was very weak. Aj beating Martin who was maybe a top 25 heavyweight didn't make him the man. Fury was the man for beating Wlad but he became unstable and threw his title away and was no longer the man. When AJ beat Wlad who was generally considered a top 3 heavyweight by most he became the closest thing to the man at heavyweight that we have today. I would say right now AJ is the man. If he beats Parker as expected he will become that much more clearly the man. Wilder is not the man. He is number 2. A good win over Ortiz will strengthen his position but he will still be number 2. That's how I see it anyway.

[DreamFighter]

none has proven so, so far.

wilder - best win, 37 year old or 40 year old same man just fatter. jeez louise.

joshua - best win? 42 year ols or 37 year old takam ? hell.

see what i mean? these are meagre standards if we compare them with 2 decades ago.

lewis - first three fights prime ruddock, postprime tucker, prime bruno.

viva the difference. Thats what a champion is.

That said, I hope one of these guys will step it up soon and be real champs.