Top 10 title reigns in boxing history

Irrespective of title fights, Leonard's run from 1917-24 may be the most dominant a fighter has ever been against a high level of opposition (only Greb's 44-fight run in 1919 compares IMO).

-Won the title by scoring the only stoppage of HoFer Freddie Welsh's 160-plus fight career.

-Bombed out reigning FW champ/HoFer Johnny Kilbane in 3 rounds.

-Credited with twice outfighting WW great/HoFer Jack Britton in no-decision fights.

-Pummeled ex-champ/HoFer Willie Ritchie into one of the few stoppage losses of his career.

-Credited with winning multiple newspaper decisions over future FW & jr. LW champ (and HoFer) Johnny Dundee.

-Decisively outpointed HoFers Rocky Kansas and Lew Tendler in recognized title defenses.

-Battled his way to victory over dangerous punchers Richie Mitchell and Charley White.

During this time frame, his only official loss was under bizarre circumstances in a challenge for Britton's WW title.

 

It probably wouldn't make anyone's top 10, but Freddie Miller had a great (and often slept-on) reign as FW champ.

His predecessor, Battling Battalino, didn't have the prettiest reign ever, but he beat at least 3 HoFers (including Miller) in the course of it.

 

His other list just rated #1 in each division. Hagler couldn't top that one because he has Monzon higher.

 

Ok. But how is saldivar on it and not sanchez?

 

Cause Saldivar had a deeper resume of wins over his reign. Sanchez, admittedly, had the bigger wins.

There's not much to choose between them. Both are considered top 10 featherweights, and both are considered top 5-10 Mexicans.

 

I just meant because he had sanchez as #1 for FW.

 

The GOAT reign at 154 is probably McCallum. Some might argue that Hearns was a better fighter than McCallum, but I think McCallum had the better reign.

 

Not much in it. Hearns' best wins were bigger names than McCallum's. Hearns was also champion for longer but was less active - that was in part due to injury in the early part of his reign and then his challenge to Hagler in the middle of it.

 

I changed my mind after seeing Xplosive's post.

 

If Hearns was better than McCallum then that gives McCallum the edge in "Better Reign".

Lesser dudes doing as good a job have the edge.

I like McCallums comp too.

Let's face it, Duran is a great great name and a great fighter.......but 154lb is not his thing and Hearns is just built to destroy him.

I'd give it to McCallum.

 

McCallum had a longer reign at 154 than Hearns, but "better"? That's arguable. McCallum doesn't have any wins at junior middle as good as Benitez and Duran.

I would say that McCallum's best win at 154 was Jackson.

Curry was never the same after Honeyghan, and McCrory was nothing more than a "good" fighter.

 

McCallum wasn't as good as Hearns. That's just the point.

Sven Ottkes reign at 168 is better than Roy Jones.

Roy could have beaten half those bums with one arm behind his back. Literally.

Sven had to work his balls off.

 

But does longer really equate to better? That's my point.

Roy shutting out Toney basically takes a crap on Ottke's entire mediocre resume.

I don't have much issue with people considering McCallum the junior middle GOAT, however.

Yeah, we agree that Hearns was the better fighter.

I'll always maintain that McCallum was a level below Leonard, Hearns, Hagler, Duran, Benitez.

I find him overrated.

 

Not really longer..........if a guy is a lesser fighter, the fact that he's even managing a reign suggests he's got a "better" reign.

Ali has a similar first reign to Marciano's run.......and Ali was fighting bigger, maybe better guys......but he was a bigger better guy himself........so who does have the more impressive reign?

If I run around the block in 2 minutes and the kid with no legs does it in 4, who did it better?