Best heavyweight reign ever?

I know the default answer is Joe Louis, and 25 defenses and nearly twelve years are difficult stats to overcome. But I am not sure if it is quite as simple.

Some of Louis' best victories (Baer, Carnera, Sharkey) were before his reign. During his title fights, he faced two absolute top class opponents, Schmeling and Walcott. According to most, the first Walcott bout was a big-time gift. Most of the other opponents were less than spectacular, small or both and Louis didn't always have an easy time with them.

Thus, I think at least a couple of guys have a real shout here.

Ali: his second reign had some pretty fine record of names. Foreman, Frazier, Norton, Shavers, Young, Lyle. The first reign with Liston, Patterson, Terrel, Williams and Folley was solid too.

Holmes: shitload of defenses and arguably better opposition than Louis, although there were several cans and struggles included.

Tyson: might be a surprising candidate but worthy. Not as many fights but the way he dominated Spinks, Bruno, Tucker, Smith, Berbick etc and was never close of losing before Douglas. The quality trumps quantity,in this case

So how do you see it? Does anyone surpass Louis and if not, is anyone even close?

 

Louis just by sheer volume and duration.

But Ali, Holmes, and Tyson would certainly be the other three candidates.

Holmes was less dominant than Ali and Tyson, which hurts him a bit.

 

Another thing that makes a case in favor of Tyson and Ali is that they pretty much cleaned their division. Witherspoon was the only truly good fighter from Mike's era he didn't face, and also Ali took on all comers.

Holmes avoided several contenders late in his reign. Also Louis didn't give a chance to the best black fighters of his time, although it wasn't necessarily his own fault. "Joe forgot about his old friends" murmured Jimmy Bivins, among others

 

Tyson's resume is really underrated and looks better and better as the years pass. While he didn't beat murderer's row, he decimated a really solid group of guys.

 

I'll stick with Louis. Yes he had the "bum of the month club" as well as some close scrapes but absolutely nobody is going to have that many defenses over that period of time and look indestructible every time.

That kind of longevity, particularly at heavyweight puts him top for me as he didn't just win, but knocked out almost every challenger.

 

I don't see any reason to have Tyson's above Wladimir's.

 

Communist.

 

A true communist would have them even.

 

Louis number of defense is impressive, but he hasn't faced enough quality fighters for me to have him nb one.

 

Better opposition. Wladimir never beat anyone as good as even a past prime Holmes.

Tyson's resume is far better.

 

His dominant decision win over Gladoznov Mkrilizewicz means nothing?

 

But it isn't. It's become trendy to shit on Wlad's era because it's boring, but it has it's fair share of decent fighters and Wlad beat them all. Look at the difference in their reigns.

Wlad's:
Chris Byrd
Calvin Brock
Ray Austin
Lamon Brewster
Sultan Ibragimov
Tony Thompson
Hasim Rahman
Ruslan Chagaev
Sam Peter
Jean Marc Mormeck
David Haye
Tony Thompson II
Francesco Pianeta
Mariusz Wach
Alexander Povetkin
Alex Leapai
Kubrat Pulev
Bryant Jennings
Tyson Fury (L)

Tyson's:
Trevor Berbick
James Smith
Pinklon Thomas
Tony Tucker
Tyrell Biggs
Larry Holmes
Tony Tubbs
Michael Spinks
Frank Bruno
Carl Williams
Buster Douglas (L)


A loss to Fury isn't as embarrassing as a loss to Douglas, and Wlad made almost double the amount of title defences Mike did. Wlad lost about ten rounds in seventeen title fights. Sure, Tyson was dominant and scored KOs, but so was Wlad. Tyson beat some underrated guys, but so did Wlad. No reason IMO to think Williams was levels above Haye, nor Thomas was anything better than Povetkin or Byrd. Tyson's resume is starting to get overrated in some circles. It's good, nothing more. A win over a two year inactive Holmes who was well into his late thirties is not impressive. What's impressive is how he won, not who he beat.

 

Wlad indeed has the huge number of defenses and the dominance going for him. As George implies, he wasn't even close of losing before Fury, when he was in his near-forties.

The reason I left him out was that I can't see a way to rank him as the #1. If you stress longevity and dominance, he could be second or third but loses to Louis. If you stress the quality of opponents, Ali and Tyson could be ranked over Louis, but Wlad can't.

And also, I have tried to avoid talking about him here anyways

 

I can't see any case whatsoever for Tyson being at the top. His opponents were good, not great, and his run was hardly endless. He was the best for what? Three years? Louis was almost as dominant, for much longer and had better overall opposition.

Ali, Holmes and Wlad should come after Louis IMO. In that order. I'd have Lewis' second run after that. Tyson falls in behind them.

 

I don't think Louis' overall opposition was too solid during his reign, outside of Schmeling and Walcott.

I don't see guys like Conn and Galento giving much trouble to any great champ who came after Louis, and guys like Godoy and Farr are best known for giving a good fight to Louis, so counting them as big wins are kind of circulating logic.

Also there are some absolutely oblivious names in the record, such as Gus Dorazio and Johnny "I just came for the" Paycheck. Subtract these, and Louis' number of defenses is not that much ahead of others anymore

 

Durazio was essentially picked due to his entertainment value. He was a legit fighter though. He beat Pastor and McCoy.

Paycheck was actually ranked. From memory, Jacobs owed his manager a favour and so Jacobs pulled some strings and got him a title shot. Definitely apart of his 'bum of the month' tour. It was literally five weeks after a fifteen round defence vs Godoy.

I don't think having soft touches is necessarily a bad thing either. Louis regularly defended against the best the division had to offer. The idea he ducked black fighters is baffling. Elmer Ray and Jimmy Bivins were never in a position to get the fight long enough to get it. They lost at inopportune times and it cost them. Louis was still winning these fights, in dominant fashion. Tyson was supposed to have a soft touch and lost.

I disagree Godoy and Farr are only known for their success vs Louis. Godoy was beating ranked fighters as early as 1935, and Farr has good wins over Baer and Loughran. Their success vs Louis only legitimised them IMO. Louis absolutely decimated Godoy in their rematch as well.

I think Conn gives plenty of later greats issues. Holmes, Ali, Liston, Foreman, even Holyfield and perhaps Bowe. They're gonna have issues with an all-time great speedster whose ring IQ is through the roof and has insane footwork and a granite chin. Sure, a lot of those probably have an easier time than Louis did, but they'd all have varying amounts of trouble with Conn, IMO. And aside from a flash KD, Galento had like no success vs Louis. Louis absolutely butchered him.

I don't think you can just go "well if you take these fights away, there's less fights". If you take 1988 away from Tyson then he's not even in contention. Why would I take away 1988? Why would you take away Louis' fights with Farr and Godoy, etc;

How I'd stack up Louis' résumé vs Tyson's would be:

Walcott II > Thomas
Prime Conn > Old Spinks
Schmeling > Old Holmes
Lewis > Williams
B Baer > Bruno
Pastor > Berbick
Braddock > Smith
Godoy < Chubbs
Nova < Biggs
Simon < Tucker

 

Hate wlad as much as the next guy, but yeah, his quality of opposition is not far behind from Tyson one

 

I never said Farr or Godoy were only known for fighting Louis, I said they are best known for it. Solid scalps, but not stuff of legends.

And I didn't say we should remove them from Louis' record, nor anyone else for the matter.

The point I was trying to make is that we shouldn't get hung with the numbers, be it Louis', Wlad's or Holmes' defenses, Marciano's 49-0 or Floyd's 50-0.

I do think Louis' reign gets overrated because of the number 25. That doesn't mean it was bad (it could still be the greatest even) but quality can't be stressed enough. And if we look past the numbers (ie. remove insignificant wins) we get a clearer picture of his worth.

Numbers are also the reason why Marciano and Calzaghe are often overrated

 

Numbers might start to obscure things, but when the difference in numbers is so consistently weighted in one's favour, you have to pay attention. Louis made nearly three times the title defences, Tyson did. And beat more ranked fighters in that title reign than Tyson did in his entire career. A number which isn't often heard, is that Louis beat 38 ranked fighters. 21 in title fights.

Even still, if we ignore the numbers, Louis should still be well above Tyson by sheer quantity. I don't think Godoy and Farr are in the top five wins of Louis' title reign. Walcott, Conn, Schmeling, Lewis, Braddock, Pastor and Nova are all more impressive IMO. That being said, I'd rate Godoy and Farr over Biggs, Bruno, Smith and maybe Williams. Then after those, you have guys like Simon, Mann, Baer, Galento, etc. Louis' record has plenty of meat to it if you strip away the soft touches.

I'm just not seeing any case for Tyson having a better reign than Louis. Not in quality or quantity. The only area in which Tyson has an advantage over Louis is dominance, and I don't think for one second anybody would be as dominant as Joe was if they had to fight such high level competition for twelve years. Maybe aside from Wladimir.

 

Tyson was a phenom, no question, but when you really break it down it does say something that his best win most likely actually is over a past his prime Larry Holmes.

 

To counter that though, I do think that win is really underrated by boxing fans. Holmes proved himself to still be very useful years afterwards and Mike is still the only man to stop him.

 

what about Wilder? after winning the title from Stiverne he defended it 10 times (9 via KO) over 5 long years. with 2 victories over an unbeaten ortiz, former champion stiverne again, perennial contender arreola, unbeaten washington, unbeaten fury.

 

If people are considering Wlad then I think it's a fair point. Saying that though, he was never lineal champ (I know it gets a bit muddied because of the Klitschko's joint reign), and he was so soundly beaten over 19 rounds by one of the top guys in his era its just hard to seriously consider him.

 

Wilder's reign shouldn't be considered for a second. Whatever you think of Wlad's era, he was still primarily fighting the best in the world. Wilder went out of his way to avoid the best, and the only time he did, was a clear failed cherry pick.

 

No he wasn't. in fact, the huge knock against Wlad imo is that out of the 4 most dominant champs in his era (aside from him obviously) he only fought one, the most taylor made for him (Byrd). I don't blame him ine second for not fighting his brother (though it does hurt his standing) but there's no reason not to have fought Ruiz and Valuev.

 

Dominant wouldn't be in the first 100 words I think of when I hear the names Valuev and Ruiz. He may not have fought Valuev and Ruiz, but he did fight Chagaev and Haye, both of whom, beat both. The only black mark is not fighting Vitali.

 

If he fought Vitali he'd have had way more black marks against him.

 

Agreed. Both Klitschko tend to gets credit for what the other did.