Which would you rather have: A Great Champion or a Competitive Division?
Given the choice between the two which would you (as a fan of the game) rather see? A great champion or a highly competitive division? Which is best for the sport and which do you enjoy the best? Is it better to have a Joe Louis with a "bum of the month club" or a Mike Tyson who is unchallenged during his prime years or is it better to have Ali, Frazier, and Foreman or Haggler, Leonard, Duran, and Hearns? Is it better to have an era with just 1 bright star or several equally talented fighters none of them really outshining the other?
I haven't even asked myself this question until right now and I am not sure what my answer is...and does the question even matter at this point?
Re: Which would you rather have: A Great Champion or a Competitive Division?
Well they aren't mutually exclusive. Just because Ali, Frazier and Foreman lost fights doesn't mean they weren't all great champions. Neither are great for boxing without the other. Competitive divisions ideally produce great champions who have had their mettle tested.
Re: Which would you rather have: A Great Champion or a Competitive Division?
A competitive division like the HW scene in the '70s and '90s, boxing was at an all time high in popularity and with so many quality fighters all around boxing. Having 1 dominant champ for a division isn't good for boxing overall, unless that dominant champ was an exciting HW one like Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, Ali, Tyson.
Re: Which would you rather have: A Great Champion or a Competitive Division?
I think it's best for boxing and best for the fighters themselves when it's a very competitive division... Fighters who rise to the top even if they have a couple of losses along the way, really get the credit they deserve in a strong division...
A really great champ in a relatively weak division always has a question mark over their head to some extent... ie. Calzaghe with like 40 wins 0 losses still a lot of people doubted him... Floyd even still doesn't get paid the respect that he deserves from a lot of people because they feel he dominated a division that wasn't to competitive...
But then you have the paradox of the question, where you have a really competitive division, but a great champ who rises above and makes all opposition look completely ordinary.... You can't say that boxing would be better off without these rare individuals just so the rest of the division seems elite...
But yeah, I would definitely say a competitive division is better... And if a champ makes all opposition look in a lower class, they just have to move up a division until they are with equal competition...
Re: Which would you rather have: A Great Champion or a Competitive Division?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
amat
Well they aren't mutually exclusive. Just because Ali, Frazier and Foreman lost fights doesn't mean they weren't all great champions. Neither are great for boxing without the other. Competitive divisions ideally produce great champions who have had their mettle tested.
True but I would say that it's out of the ordinary for an era to have both.
Re: Which would you rather have: A Great Champion or a Competitive Division?
with out a doubt a competitive division all day and twice on sundays :cool::cool::cool:
they produce great fights and usually a great champion as well in the end ;)
for me if a fighter is that good he makes all the rest seem shit it can wear alittle thin over time if he never gets challanged or avoids any.
Re: Which would you rather have: A Great Champion or a Competitive Division?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Saddo
with out a doubt a competitive division all day and twice on sundays :cool::cool::cool:
they produce great fights and usually a great champion as well in the end ;)
for me if a fighter is that good he makes all the rest seem shit it can wear alittle thin over time if he never gets challanged or avoids any.
It's a real shame for Heavyweights in those situations because they can do nothing about it.. But for all other divisions, the standouts can just move up.. Which is a whole other level of exciting.. And I think the real greats over time are the ones who have not just transcended a competitive division, but moved up to constantly look for the greatest challenge..
For me, that is greater than someone just ruling a single division for so many years.. Even an elite division..
Re: Which would you rather have: A Great Champion or a Competitive Division?
competitive division but at same time I like there being an exciting champion with an aura of invincibility. Not seen that one too often eg Tyson, SRR , Joe Louis, Frank Bruno etc
I think the latter brings more neutrals as fans too - bit like Taylor at darts ;)
Re: Which would you rather have: A Great Champion or a Competitive Division?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mark TKO
competitive decision but at same time I like there being an exciting champion with an aura of invincibility. Not seen that one too often eg Tyson, SRR , Joe Louis, Frank Bruno etc
I think the latter brings more neutrals as fans too - bit like Taylor at darts ;)
Bruno was the greatest heavyweight of all time
Re: Which would you rather have: A Great Champion or a Competitive Division?
Like Mark said, a dominant champion who can transend the sports brings in more casual fans, the more casual fans the more boxing is on TV.
We'd still find something to moan about ;D
Re: Which would you rather have: A Great Champion or a Competitive Division?
great champs come once in a lifetime.
Re: Which would you rather have: A Great Champion or a Competitive Division?
A great champion emerging out of a highly competitive division ;)
Re: Which would you rather have: A Great Champion or a Competitive Division?
A competitive division would see more great fights, and could produce a great champion as the best usually rise to the top. The problem with a great champion in a less than competitive division is sometimes people don't appreciate the quality of the champion. See Wladimir Klitschko as an example, he often doesn't get the credit he deserves for being so dominant because it isn't a particularly deep division, and no-one is especially competitive with him when they step into the ring.
The light-welter division is a good example of what could be a competitive division producing a great champion. Its a tight run thing between the guys at the top of that division, but with them starting to fight each other soon the best will rise and begin to establish themselves as a great champion. That's assuming the Khan-Maidana and Bradley-Alexander winners fight each other.
Re: Which would you rather have: A Great Champion or a Competitive Division?
From one stems the other really but we are not always so fortunate. Is a Champion dominate and really all that great unless he fights the very best available? Today its even more blurred with Champions and top contenders jumping divisions so often.
Re: Which would you rather have: A Great Champion or a Competitive Division?
I'd rather have a great champion because nobody remembers the average joe's and competitive divisions (bar a few eras) usually end up making the whole lot mediocre. To the average person boxing is a lot like horse racing, people new to the sport don't usually know who does what best and which style match ups are difficult or easy, but a great and I mean GREAT fighter can make everything seem easy and can snatch victory from the jaws of defeat and it's more heroic, it's more impressive, and it's harder to do...it's more difficult to be up for fights against guys who may not have the best records but have good talent or tough styles.
Look at Louis, Rocky, Tyson...those guys just had an aura about them they still do and when they falter (if they did, because in Rocky's case he didn't) it sends shockwaves through the entire sport which in most cases cause for instability in the affected division for YEARS. Look at the heavyweight division right after Louis, utter chaos, after Marciano retired, after Tyson lost to Douglas complete maddness, after Lennox Lewis....the middleweights after Monzon, Haggler, Bernard Hopkins. Heck welterweight after Sugar Ray Robinson, I doubt a unified Welterweight champion has made 2 consecutive successful title defenses since Robinson left the division.
Re: Which would you rather have: A Great Champion or a Competitive Division?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
I'd rather have a great champion because nobody remembers the average joe's and competitive divisions (bar a few eras) usually end up making the whole lot mediocre. To the average person boxing is a lot like horse racing, people new to the sport don't usually know who does what best and which style match ups are difficult or easy, but a great and I mean GREAT fighter can make everything seem easy and can snatch victory from the jaws of defeat and it's more heroic, it's more impressive, and it's harder to do...it's more difficult to be up for fights against guys who may not have the best records but have good talent or tough styles.
Look at Louis, Rocky, Tyson...those guys just had an aura about them they still do and when they falter (if they did, because in Rocky's case he didn't) it sends shockwaves through the entire sport which in most cases cause for instability in the affected division for YEARS. Look at the heavyweight division right after Louis, utter chaos, after Marciano retired, after Tyson lost to Douglas complete maddness, after Lennox Lewis....the middleweights after Monzon, Haggler, Bernard Hopkins. Heck welterweight after Sugar Ray Robinson, I doubt a unified Welterweight champion has made 2 consecutive successful title defenses since Robinson left the division.
A competitive division with a great champ emerging from it instead of a dominant one just fighting weak opposition is much better for the sport. See Ali and the 70s and then compare it to Wlad or Holmes, but then again those 2 have a shit boring style that doesn't appeal to the casual sports fan. Also you have to take into account that when a guy is so dominant, they will ask who did he fight? Louis is still cited for his bum of the month club, Marciano for beating up on washed up old fighters, Tyson's reign in the mid to late 80s is still being cited for being a very weak HW era, etc. I don't think anyone can question the HW scene in the 70s or 90s as being weak. It just provided many anticipated matchups that was so good for the sport. Much more so than a great champ beating up on bums.
Re: Which would you rather have: A Great Champion or a Competitive Division?
A great champion is easier to market and bring in more fans too. Because as time has shown, if the star is big enough sometimes it doesn't matter who they are fighting because it will bring in the fans just to see them. You can have some very very popular and cross over fighters come along marketed bringing people into the sport and not even be a champion. The competitive division thing feels a bit overrated, because competitive fights are great for the sport but it really doesn't bring in new fans to see two unknowns duking it out that have the diehards loving it but have the casual expect that all the time and see any other fight and it not turn out that way. And a competitive division is great but not if the ones that are so competitive in it not fighting the main ones. So a great champion within a competitive division is probably best. As the great champion would be marketed the right way and because they are 'great' they will defend against the best.
Sad thing is, most fans refuse to acknowledge a fighter as 'great' until the last 2 or 3 years of their career. Or they give it too soon and that fighter gets exposed.
Re: Which would you rather have: A Great Champion or a Competitive Division?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
I'd rather have a great champion because nobody remembers the average joe's and competitive divisions (bar a few eras) usually end up making the whole lot mediocre. To the average person boxing is a lot like horse racing, people new to the sport don't usually know who does what best and which style match ups are difficult or easy, but a great and I mean GREAT fighter can make everything seem easy and can snatch victory from the jaws of defeat and it's more heroic, it's more impressive, and it's harder to do...it's more difficult to be up for fights against guys who may not have the best records but have good talent or tough styles.
Look at Louis, Rocky, Tyson...those guys just had an aura about them they still do and when they falter (if they did, because in Rocky's case he didn't) it sends shockwaves through the entire sport which in most cases cause for instability in the affected division for YEARS. Look at the heavyweight division right after Louis, utter chaos, after Marciano retired, after Tyson lost to Douglas complete maddness, after Lennox Lewis....the middleweights after Monzon, Haggler, Bernard Hopkins. Heck welterweight after Sugar Ray Robinson, I doubt a unified Welterweight champion has made 2 consecutive successful title defenses since Robinson left the division.
A competitive division with a great champ emerging from it instead of a dominant one just fighting weak opposition is much better for the sport. See Ali and the 70s and then compare it to Wlad or Holmes, but then again those 2 have a shit boring style that doesn't appeal to the casual sports fan. Also you have to take into account that when a guy is so dominant, they will ask who did he fight? Louis is still cited for his bum of the month club, Marciano for beating up on washed up old fighters, Tyson's reign in the mid to late 80s is still being cited for being a very weak HW era, etc. I don't think anyone can question the HW scene in the 70s or 90s as being weak. It just provided many anticipated matchups that was so good for the sport. Much more so than a great champ beating up on bums.
You usually don't get the choise of "both" especially in this case. I'm asking if you think one is better than the other #1 In your opinion and #2 For the sport, I don't see why that's so hard to answer whether you accept the premise of the question or not.
See post no. 3.;)
Re: Which would you rather have: A Great Champion or a Competitive Division?
IMO you need both to really ever have either.
