The RATE-A-TITLE REIGN Thread

Here are some Factors:

1:Who they beat for a title
2redecessor's dominance of division
3:How many defenses acheived by champion and quality of opponents fought and not fought
4:Manner of victories (clear decisions, controversial ones, KO's)
5:Number of other alphabet titles won (did champion unify or attempt to?)
6:If champion was not unified, compare opponents to other belt holders at the time.
7:Who champion finally LOST to
8:Manner of losing title (controversial, emphatic)


Grades: (just one overall grade per title reign)

A:Hall of Fame worthy title reign (would the SINGLE title reign qualify the fighter for the HOF)
B:Great (beat quality opponents over a significant period of time)
C:Good (a few notable defenses)
Door (transitional champ, ie: 1-2 defenses)
F:Should not have been champion to begin with, alphabet chump

------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes:

Feel free to use boxrec.com

Interim titles do not count.

This is only for an individual title reign, not career accomplishments in the same weight class. For example Lennox Lewis had three title reigns.

Beat Tony Tucker, lost to Oliver McCall

beat Oliver McCall, lost to Hasim Rahman

beat Hasim Rahman, retired

Lewis also relinquished two title belts during his last reign

 

U Can Give the Likes of Malignaggi & Urango F's on their Reigns....Bernard @ Middle, Calzaghe @ Supermiddle & Joe Louis @ Heavy are A's, Even Though Fans will NITPICK their Resumes...Since the Kostya Tszyu Thread Inspired this 1, REED would Rate his Reign a B

Good Thread, Joe...

REED:hammert:

 

Joe Calzaghe

a. Beat Chris Eubanks (a great fighter)

b. Eubanks was unbeaten in 40-odd fights, including two fights against Benn and two wins against Watson. Both very good fighters.

c. 20-odd defences.

d. Lots of KO's and a few decision wins. No-one even come close to beating him save Hopkins and Robin Reed. Close fight % = 5%

e. All

f. Beat Kessler; picked by many to beat him. Beat Lacy; odds favourite to beat him. Only Ottke remains to be discussed, but lets be honest- Ottke was wank.

g. Nope.

h. Nope.

We got a winner...

MTF :hammert:

 

Well I'll start it off by grading Roy Jones Jr.'s title reign at light heavyweight.

He beat Montell Griffin for the title after Griffin gave him the toughest fight of his career in their first fight. He dispatched Montell Griffin in emphatic fashion as well. Roy went on to unify the division and consistently took on top 10 opponents and basically cleared out the division as best as he could. Darius Michalczewski was the only titlist he did not face and a hall of fame fighter. If Roy had beaten Dariusz, he would undoubtedly receive an A. Roy also had a long reign of nearly 7 years.

Roy did lose by KO and had another disappoting KO loss immediately afterward, but it was at the age of 35 and I do not believe this should be held against him. His reign was stellar and impressive. It did not look like he could have been beaten during his run.



I give Roy a B for his reign at light heavyweight.

 

Just to Show that REED is Taking this Thread SERIOUSLY, he'd Only Give Roy a "B" for his Lightheavy Reign...MichalSHITski is a GLARING Omission to Roy's Reign...That ONE Guy Keeps Roy from having an "A" Reign @ 175....



REED:mj:

 

Calzaghe gets an A in my book.

 

artie:

 

Roy is a strange motherfucker to rate, and this sort of thread proves why.

He was/is the best 168lb ever (imho that was his most impressive collection of performances) but he wasn't there long enough or dominant enough to be ahead of Calzaghe; even though almost all with any sense would pick him to beat Joe.

RJJ is a bad fighter to try to categorise.

MTF :kidcool:

 

Calzaghe reign gets a B....Lacy/Kessler...after years and years of garbage....

 

You have no idea how much I miss seeing that name. Every single Roy thread people mentioned Dariusz and then you would respond with that. It was fun times. When Wholio (again LOL) beat Dariusz it was pretty much like Roy did. I can relate that feeling to how Roy haters felt when Roy finally lost.

 

N this Thread, Roy Only Qualifies @ 175...He was BRIEFLY a Champ @ Middle & Heavy & Only Made a HANDFUL of Defenses @ Supermiddle....

He can ONLY B Rated @ Lightheavy, but MichalSHITski HAS to B Held Against him...



REED:hammert:

 

I dont think much emphasis should be placed on the alphabet championships at all

and when you say "Hall of Fame Worthy", do you mean the way the IBHOF has started inducting basically everyone who held a belt at one time? Because I think about 70% of the fighters in the hall of fame shouldn't even be in there

 

That's why you can only really judge his light heavyweight reign. I do think Toney was a better win for Roy than either Lacy or Kessler for Calzaghe, but obviously Calzaghe's amount of time spent in the division puts him ahead.

Although Calzaghe has a similar nemesis in Ottke like Dariusz was to RJJ.

 

I mean that the ONE title reign alone would qualify them to get into the HOF. For example, Hopkins would go into the HOF just on his middleweight title reign.

 

But what if U Held an "Alphabet Title" For Any LENGTH of Time???....For Instance, Floyd Mayweather was NEVER the Undisputed @ 130...Conversely, Guys like Cory Spink & Baldomir Won & DEFENDED the RECOGNIZED Welterweight Title...

REED would Certainly Rate Floyd's 130 lb Reign HIGHER than Baldomir or Spinks' Reign @ 147...



REED:mj:

 

It is very debatable as to whether of not Eubank can be classified as a 'great' fighter....he certainly wasn't at the time he fought Calzaghe.......he came out of retirement to fight Calzaghe for the vacant title having lost twice to Steve Collins.......it was a good win, Eubank wasn't shot but it says a lot about Joe's career that it wasn't until the Lacy/Kessler fights that he surpassed that win

 

How about Felix Trinidad's title reign at Welterweight, he held the IBF Welterweight title from 1993 to 1999 and in that time he beat the likes of Yory Boy Campus (undefeated at the time, later became Jr. Middleweight Champion), Oba Carr (undeafted at the time), Pernell Whitaker (Hall of Famer), Oscar De La Hoya (Hall of Famer), Hector Camacho (Hall of Famer), Maurice Blocker (Multiple time champion), Freddie Pendelton (lightweight champion). In total he had 16 title defensives, 13 ending in T/KO's and unified the IBF and WBC welterweight titles when he defeated Oscar De La Hoya...(yeah start ya bitching people)

I so hope I got the point of this thread...:bangh:

 

What do you grade his title reign?

 

B at the least...:kick:

 

Calling Eubank a great fighter is definitely a reach here. And when you factor in that this fight took place at the tail end of Eubank's career...this fight was more of the "faded former name on the resume" win than a big win.

Let's not reimagine Eubank as a great fighter (especially at the time the fight took place) just for the sake of Calzaghe's resume.

 

Eubanks was not a great fighter and it adds to the faded names portion of Calzaghe's resume but his longevity cannot be denied. He would go to the HOF just on his 168 reign alone.

 

I'm waiting for Trplsec to show up and give McCallum an "A" and then try to convince us that Sean Mannion was a quality win.::

 

That's nice...but I wasn't disputing Calzaghe's longevity. He will go to the HOF because of his number of title defenses, but I'm with cdogg on his take on what constitues "Hall of Fame Worthy"

 

Michael Spinks

1 & 2: Beat Eddie Mustafa Muhammad. I wouldn't call Eddie a great fighter, but he was a very good one at the time. He was the top rated heavy at that time who also held a win over his rival champion Saad Muhammad.

3: Made 10 successful title defenses (8 by KO). Never came all that close to losing his title. Had good fights with Eddie Davis and Dwight Qawi. Defeated the best the division had to offer during his reign and there is no one to point out as someone who was "ducked." Defeated a great fighter in Qawi, a very good one in Muhammed, and solid to good fighters like Eddie Davis, Johnny Davis, Murray Sutherland, Jerry Celestine and Jim MacDonald. Spinks also stopped quality opposition like Marvin Johnson and Yaqui Lopez prior to winning the title.

4: Eight out of ten title defenses won by stoppage. 2 decision wins, neither one controversial. Some folks tried to create a controversy about the Davis fight, but if there was a controversy it was about the wide margins on the scorecards...not that Spinks got the decision. Davis did better than expected and the scorecards should have been closer, but Spinks won the fight.

5 & 6:Unified the title with a clear win over fellow HOFer Qawi in a fight that was considered to be a toss-up by most going into the fight.

7 & 8: Never lost the title. Moved up to beat Larry Holmes for the Heavyweight title. Spinks could have milked the 175 lb title for a while longer and puffed up his number of title defenses, but he chose to make the move to heavy instead.

I'll give Spinks an "A"

 

Calzaghe gets an A? ::

 

Are you at all surprised?::

 

Wghat about Julio Cesar Vasquez?

 

title reigns aren't the be-all and end-all, but as far as Joe's go there are few better.....certainly in recent times because the fashionable thing to do is move up in weight........so many of this era's defining boxers haven't enjoyed particuarly lengthy reigns.......a good discussion would be who had the better title reign.....Calzaghe or Hopkins?

 

What about Jermain Taylor's reign as middleweight champion??

I give him a C.

 

Eubanks was a great fighter; the Eubanks who beat Benn and Watson x 2 was anyway; strong, quick and heavy handed with a granite chin and an indomitable will to win. The second Watson fight took a lot out of him though and he was never the same after that. And quite obviously the version Joe beat was very faded (borderline shot, in fact), BUT it was still a very good win for Joe, who was very green back then

MTF