Which would you rather have: A Great Champion or a Competitive Division?

[generalbulldog]

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.

[Majesty]

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.

[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.

[generalbulldog]

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.

[rjj tszyu]

IMO you need both to really ever have either.