10 Most Accomplished of My Lifetime

[marbleheadmaui]

Interesting thread...

Ali- He is Ali what else is there to say, 1st 3 time LEGIT HW champion, beat more HW legends then any other 2 hwts combined...reinvented himself more then once...Again he is Ali his accomplishments speak for themselves

Mike Tyson- Like Ali an easy answer is He's Mike Tyson and that should be good enough. His best days had questionable comp but man did he walk through guys, Until his decline he dominated like no other HW...His over all attraction to the sport...Youngest HW champion, some of the largest live gates ever, one of if not the biggest PPV attraction of all time...remember PPV was just getting off the ground when Tyson was selling more then most of todays guys...He always kept you wanting more!!! Not many fighters have that ability despite what they can do in the ring

Roy Jones Jr- Middleweight, Super Middleweight, Light Heavyweight and HW champion, had skill we had never seen ina fighter, his athletic ability at MW and SMW were nothing short of jaw dropping, he DOMINATED his weight classes for years..5 or 6 time time world champion

Oscar De La Hoya- six division world champion, maybe the most popular fighter since Ali in terms of fanbase and drawing ability, fought the best competiton available he sought them out!!! Faced JCC, Pernell, Hopkins, PBF, Mosley, Trinidad, Quartey, Pacquiao.Vargas, Campas, Gatti, JJL, Paez, Ruelas, Hernandez,Camacho and the list goes on...Plus went on to be one of the most successful promoters ever....DLH wins even when he loses because he doesnt lose fans and uses the bout to further boxing one way or another

Sugar Ray Leonard- WW, JMW, MW, SMW and LHW world champion, fought Hagler, Hearns, Duran, Benitez, was not until after some wars and eye injuries did he ever look ordinary, popular top resume champion 5 weight classes three of the most memorible rivalries ever.....

Thanks for your thoughts. A couple of counters
1. The only way Tyson can make a list like this is if you add entertainment as a criteria. He was a THE MAN champ with two defenses. And he was NOT the champion until he defeated Spinks. More on that below.
2. The equating of alphabet belts with true champions is a curse of the last 15 years. It literally is Bullspit. If you're an American it is equating division champs with the World Series Champ. If you're a soccer fan it is like equating World Cup semi-finalists with the WC champion. The alphabet straps literally are meaningless in determining a champion. For that concept to have meaning in boxing it is because the title is WORLD Champion. That means there can only be one per division at a time.

Let's look at Roy Jones as an example.
160-He beat BHOP for a vacant strap. At the time BHOP was the 8th ranked middle in the world. At the time the middles were a mess and stayed that way for another seven years. In NO sense was Jones CHAMPION here the way Hagler or Monzon was.
168-Again, an enormously muddled division. Jones claim rests on his defeat of James Toney. A GREAT win. But why was Toney a strapholder? he'd taken it from Tony Thornton, ranked #8 at 168. The lineal champion at that time was Michael Nunn who had taken the crown from Victor Cordoba who had taken it from Chris Tiozzo etc. Roy has no legit claim here either.
175-This one is easiest of all. Darius Michlashewski won, in the ring, every belt Roy held here. It was simply stripped because Darius wouldn't pay sanctioning fees...and Roy wouldn't fight him. Zero claim
Heavyweight-John Ruiz? Come on. Lennox Lewis was the lineal champ in a line going back all the way to Patterson.

A last point on Jones. He had monster TALENT, his skill set was seriously deficient. His footwork was awful, he had no jab, his balance was only ok, it's just that he was blessed with such amazing natural gifts he was able to win in spite of mediocre skills.

By comparison, in the days of eight divisions and one champ per? THE WORST champion had the equivalent of eight of today's belts and two division champions like Robinson had the equivalent of 16 and Henry Armstrong held every belt between 126 and 154. That's 24 belts.

See how silly this gets when one values the alphabet straps!


Oscar was THE MAN in two divisions. A fine fighter. But the only way he makes a list like this is if you count entertainment value rather than in-ring accomplishment.

Leonard belongs though I think my reasons are far better than yours

[Violent Demise]

Let's look at Roy Jones as an example.
160-He beat BHOP for a vacant strap. At the time BHOP was the 8th ranked middle in the world. At the time the middles were a mess and stayed that way for another seven years. In NO sense was Jones CHAMPION here the way Hagler or Monzon was.
168-Again, an enormously muddled division. Jones claim rests on his defeat of James Toney. A GREAT win. But why was Toney a strapholder? he'd taken it from Tony Thornton, ranked #8 at 168. The lineal champion at that time was Michael Nunn who had taken the crown from Victor Cordoba who had taken it from Chris Tiozzo etc. Roy has no legit claim here either.
175-This one is easiest of all. Darius Michlashewski won, in the ring, every belt Roy held here. It was simply stripped because Darius wouldn't pay sanctioning fees...and Roy wouldn't fight him. Zero claim
Heavyweight-John Ruiz? Come on. Lennox Lewis was the lineal champ in a line going back all the way to Patterson.

A last point on Jones. He had monster TALENT, his skill set was seriously deficient. His footwork was awful, he had no jab, his balance was only ok, it's just that he was blessed with such amazing natural gifts he was able to win in spite of mediocre skills.

That's not entirely true. It depends on how you look at the lineal line after Michael Spinks vacated. Some consider Virgil Hill's defeat of Henry Maske as the beginning of the next line of succession, but a good amount trace the title through Roy Jones. The lineal championship at Light Heavyweight is very much a subject to dispute

[marbleheadmaui]

Let's look at Roy Jones as an example.
160-He beat BHOP for a vacant strap. At the time BHOP was the 8th ranked middle in the world. At the time the middles were a mess and stayed that way for another seven years. In NO sense was Jones CHAMPION here the way Hagler or Monzon was.
168-Again, an enormously muddled division. Jones claim rests on his defeat of James Toney. A GREAT win. But why was Toney a strapholder? he'd taken it from Tony Thornton, ranked #8 at 168. The lineal champion at that time was Michael Nunn who had taken the crown from Victor Cordoba who had taken it from Chris Tiozzo etc. Roy has no legit claim here either.
175-This one is easiest of all. Darius Michlashewski won, in the ring, every belt Roy held here. It was simply stripped because Darius wouldn't pay sanctioning fees...and Roy wouldn't fight him. Zero claim
Heavyweight-John Ruiz? Come on. Lennox Lewis was the lineal champ in a line going back all the way to Patterson.

A last point on Jones. He had monster TALENT, his skill set was seriously deficient. His footwork was awful, he had no jab, his balance was only ok, it's just that he was blessed with such amazing natural gifts he was able to win in spite of mediocre skills.

That's not entirely true. It depends on how you look at the lineal line after Michael Spinks vacated. Some consider Virgil Hill's defeat of Henry Maske as the beginning of the next line of succession, but a good amount trace the title through Roy Jones. The lineal championship at Light Heavyweight is very much a subject to dispute

Fair point. I'd argue that the best possible choice for creating a new line was Virgil Hill. Then he lost to Darius. Darius remained active until he lost to...I dunno? was it Tiozzo?

I guess one could make the argument that the crown remained vacant past Hill, but then how does Jones get THE claim over say Darius then?

[Violent Demise]

Let's look at Roy Jones as an example.
160-He beat BHOP for a vacant strap. At the time BHOP was the 8th ranked middle in the world. At the time the middles were a mess and stayed that way for another seven years. In NO sense was Jones CHAMPION here the way Hagler or Monzon was.
168-Again, an enormously muddled division. Jones claim rests on his defeat of James Toney. A GREAT win. But why was Toney a strapholder? he'd taken it from Tony Thornton, ranked #8 at 168. The lineal champion at that time was Michael Nunn who had taken the crown from Victor Cordoba who had taken it from Chris Tiozzo etc. Roy has no legit claim here either.
175-This one is easiest of all. Darius Michlashewski won, in the ring, every belt Roy held here. It was simply stripped because Darius wouldn't pay sanctioning fees...and Roy wouldn't fight him. Zero claim
Heavyweight-John Ruiz? Come on. Lennox Lewis was the lineal champ in a line going back all the way to Patterson.

A last point on Jones. He had monster TALENT, his skill set was seriously deficient. His footwork was awful, he had no jab, his balance was only ok, it's just that he was blessed with such amazing natural gifts he was able to win in spite of mediocre skills.

That's not entirely true. It depends on how you look at the lineal line after Michael Spinks vacated. Some consider Virgil Hill's defeat of Henry Maske as the beginning of the next line of succession, but a good amount trace the title through Roy Jones. The lineal championship at Light Heavyweight is very much a subject to dispute

Fair point. I'd argue that the best possible choice for creating a new line was Virgil Hill. Then he lost to Darius. Darius remained active until he lost to...I dunno? was it Tiozzo?

I guess one could make the argument that the crown remained vacant past Hill, but then how does Jones get THE claim over say Darius then?

It depends on how you look at it. The following is from someone who traces the title through Jones. I'm not supporting it personally. But it does make a lot of sense.

On 21st September 1985, Spinks made history by dethroning world heavyweight champion Larry Holmes and became the first lineal light heavyweight champion to topple a reigning lineal heavyweight title-holder.
Naturally, with heavyweight fame beckoning, he vacated his light heavyweight title and, predictably, there was mass confusion with the alphabet groups frantically filling vacancies like pigs at a trough.
Thereafter, there was no clear-cut lineage, and Boxing Illustrated magazine, which was naming one rightful world champion per division at the time, had their light heavyweight title vacant during this period.
Finally, in November 1996, something happened. WBA belt-holder Virgil Hill and IBF belt-holder Henry Maske fought each other in Germany on 23rd November and the winner was Hill. However, during the same month, Roy Jones beat Mike McCallum for the WBC belt. Jones had already beaten James Toney in 1994, who had been on an eye-catching winning streak; he had wins over Iran Barkley and Tim Littles amongst others (the needless super middleweight division is not recognized and therefore these were light heavyweight bouts). At this time, Jones was certainly the most talented fighter in the picture.
Some observers supported the Hill-Maske bout as being for the true world championship, but Jones could really not be discounted from the equation. In addition, a chain of succession existed; Hill had lost to Thomas Hearns on 3rd June 1991. Hearns was then beaten by Barkley, who was beaten by Toney, who was beaten by Jones.
On 13th June 1997, Hill lost to Dariusz Michalczewski, and Michalczewski embarked on a quest to face the most obscure opponents he could find. He fulfilled this quest by finding the likes of Darren Zenner and Muslim Biarslanov to pound on. Who were these guys? Maybe nobody knows. There was a strong argument that he essentially boxed his way out of contention by feasting on one soft touch after another. Why should he be rewarded for taking such an easy path?
Initially, the division needed a Jones-Hill bout to decide who would be the next rightful champ, but Jones lost to Montell Griffin on 21st March 1997. However, he beat Griffin in a rematch on 7th August the same year, and then there was hope for a Jones- Michalczewski match. But this wasn’t happening. While it could be argued that Michalczewski’s momentum disappeared as he continued to face no-hopers, Jones rose to greater heights after defeating Hill and Lou Del Valle.
Meanwhile, Reggie Johnson penetrated the scene with wins over William Guthrie, Ole Klemetsen and Willie Taylor, all decent opposition. Was this enough to overtake Michalczewski? At the very least he caught up with him and was on equal footing.
Johnson faced Jones on 5th June 1999, and this could be viewed as being for the vacant world championship. Any fight for the championship had to include Jones, who was an outstanding talent.

Ring Magazine is also another one who traces it through Jones

[marbleheadmaui]

Let's look at Roy Jones as an example.
160-He beat BHOP for a vacant strap. At the time BHOP was the 8th ranked middle in the world. At the time the middles were a mess and stayed that way for another seven years. In NO sense was Jones CHAMPION here the way Hagler or Monzon was.
168-Again, an enormously muddled division. Jones claim rests on his defeat of James Toney. A GREAT win. But why was Toney a strapholder? he'd taken it from Tony Thornton, ranked #8 at 168. The lineal champion at that time was Michael Nunn who had taken the crown from Victor Cordoba who had taken it from Chris Tiozzo etc. Roy has no legit claim here either.
175-This one is easiest of all. Darius Michlashewski won, in the ring, every belt Roy held here. It was simply stripped because Darius wouldn't pay sanctioning fees...and Roy wouldn't fight him. Zero claim
Heavyweight-John Ruiz? Come on. Lennox Lewis was the lineal champ in a line going back all the way to Patterson.

A last point on Jones. He had monster TALENT, his skill set was seriously deficient. His footwork was awful, he had no jab, his balance was only ok, it's just that he was blessed with such amazing natural gifts he was able to win in spite of mediocre skills.

That's not entirely true. It depends on how you look at the lineal line after Michael Spinks vacated. Some consider Virgil Hill's defeat of Henry Maske as the beginning of the next line of succession, but a good amount trace the title through Roy Jones. The lineal championship at Light Heavyweight is very much a subject to dispute

Fair point. I'd argue that the best possible choice for creating a new line was Virgil Hill. Then he lost to Darius. Darius remained active until he lost to...I dunno? was it Tiozzo?

I guess one could make the argument that the crown remained vacant past Hill, but then how does Jones get THE claim over say Darius then?

It depends on how you look at it. The following is from someone who traces the title through Jones. I'm not supporting it personally. But it does make a lot of sense.

On 21st September 1985, Spinks made history by dethroning world heavyweight champion Larry Holmes and became the first lineal light heavyweight champion to topple a reigning lineal heavyweight title-holder.
Naturally, with heavyweight fame beckoning, he vacated his light heavyweight title and, predictably, there was mass confusion with the alphabet groups frantically filling vacancies like pigs at a trough.
Thereafter, there was no clear-cut lineage, and Boxing Illustrated magazine, which was naming one rightful world champion per division at the time, had their light heavyweight title vacant during this period.
Finally, in November 1996, something happened. WBA belt-holder Virgil Hill and IBF belt-holder Henry Maske fought each other in Germany on 23rd November and the winner was Hill. However, during the same month, Roy Jones beat Mike McCallum for the WBC belt. Jones had already beaten James Toney in 1994, who had been on an eye-catching winning streak; he had wins over Iran Barkley and Tim Littles amongst others (the needless super middleweight division is not recognized and therefore these were light heavyweight bouts). At this time, Jones was certainly the most talented fighter in the picture.
Some observers supported the Hill-Maske bout as being for the true world championship, but Jones could really not be discounted from the equation. In addition, a chain of succession existed; Hill had lost to Thomas Hearns on 3rd June 1991. Hearns was then beaten by Barkley, who was beaten by Toney, who was beaten by Jones.
On 13th June 1997, Hill lost to Dariusz Michalczewski, and Michalczewski embarked on a quest to face the most obscure opponents he could find. He fulfilled this quest by finding the likes of Darren Zenner and Muslim Biarslanov to pound on. Who were these guys? Maybe nobody knows. There was a strong argument that he essentially boxed his way out of contention by feasting on one soft touch after another. Why should he be rewarded for taking such an easy path?
Initially, the division needed a Jones-Hill bout to decide who would be the next rightful champ, but Jones lost to Montell Griffin on 21st March 1997. However, he beat Griffin in a rematch on 7th August the same year, and then there was hope for a Jones- Michalczewski match. But this wasn’t happening. While it could be argued that Michalczewski’s momentum disappeared as he continued to face no-hopers, Jones rose to greater heights after defeating Hill and Lou Del Valle.
Meanwhile, Reggie Johnson penetrated the scene with wins over William Guthrie, Ole Klemetsen and Willie Taylor, all decent opposition. Was this enough to overtake Michalczewski? At the very least he caught up with him and was on equal footing.
Johnson faced Jones on 5th June 1999, and this could be viewed as being for the vacant world championship. Any fight for the championship had to include Jones, who was an outstanding talent.

Ring Magazine is also another one who traces it through Jones

Well I must admit I like the starting point, simply denying the 168 division (my personal least favorite) exists in the first place!

But it really is an odd way to begin isn't it? I also got a kick out of the complaints about Darius (which are fair enough) and then justifies it because Jones fights...Lou Del Valle? Hadn't Lou lost to Virgil previously? Doesn't that render the rest of their argument regarding Hearns and Barkley etc kinda tough to support? Reggie Johnson was a good fighter, but HE's in the ring to determine the lineal champ? based on what?

Yeah Ring just got sick of Darius and said screw it and named Jones the guy after he beat Gonzales and Harmon.

I may just be outvoted here. The classy thing to do at this point would probably be to concede defeat.

Me? I'm gonna hold my breath and stomp my foot and see if that changes Ring Magazine and Boxing Illustrated's mind.

[generalbulldog]

With such a talented fighter such as Jones it is mind boggling that he was never a lineal champ! Kind of reminds me of Donaire, an extremely gifted fighter that has yet been a lineal champ.

And most boxing fans and historians just go with the lineal title anyways. I mean when John Ruiz gets to claim he was a HW champ like Ali and Louis, then you know the alphabet titles don't mean shit.

[Violent Demise]

With such a talented fighter such as Jones it is mind boggling that he was never a lineal champ! Kind of reminds me of Donaire, an extremely gifted fighter that has yet been a lineal champ.

And most boxing fans and historians just go with the lineal title anyways. I mean when John Ruiz gets to claim he was a HW champ like Ali and Louis, then you know the alphabet titles don't mean shit.

If I'm not mistaken I do believe Donaire is the Bantamweight lineal champion at this moment

[DaxxKahn]

With such a talented fighter such as Jones it is mind boggling that he was never a lineal champ! Kind of reminds me of Donaire, an extremely gifted fighter that has yet been a lineal champ.

And most boxing fans and historians just go with the lineal title anyways. I mean when John Ruiz gets to claim he was a HW champ like Ali and Louis, then you know the alphabet titles don't mean shit.

Jones was the P4P champion for most of his career from SMW until he came back down from HW...There was little dispute on who he would or could beat...The titles during that time were nothing more then decorations....same for Floyd and now Manny...they sat on top of everyone period! the titles at that level eventually become nothing more then belts you can't keep your pants up with.....It is boxing politics and the need for the sanctioning bodies along with promoters to keep making money and having the rating system turn that guys at the stages those fighters reached don't really put that much attention on titles.....I mean in truth how many champions over the last decade have held the IBO title and ring title?.....WTF is the IBO? Until recently lets say the last 2 years it was virtually unknown by the fans....but tell Wlad, Lennox, Darchinyan, Dawson, Tarver, Jones etc the belt was not just as important...because they made money defending the IBO not the ring title......Titles today are nothing more then marketing tools wins are what decides things

[Violent Demise]

Let's look at Roy Jones as an example.
160-He beat BHOP for a vacant strap. At the time BHOP was the 8th ranked middle in the world. At the time the middles were a mess and stayed that way for another seven years. In NO sense was Jones CHAMPION here the way Hagler or Monzon was.
168-Again, an enormously muddled division. Jones claim rests on his defeat of James Toney. A GREAT win. But why was Toney a strapholder? he'd taken it from Tony Thornton, ranked #8 at 168. The lineal champion at that time was Michael Nunn who had taken the crown from Victor Cordoba who had taken it from Chris Tiozzo etc. Roy has no legit claim here either.
175-This one is easiest of all. Darius Michlashewski won, in the ring, every belt Roy held here. It was simply stripped because Darius wouldn't pay sanctioning fees...and Roy wouldn't fight him. Zero claim
Heavyweight-John Ruiz? Come on. Lennox Lewis was the lineal champ in a line going back all the way to Patterson.

A last point on Jones. He had monster TALENT, his skill set was seriously deficient. His footwork was awful, he had no jab, his balance was only ok, it's just that he was blessed with such amazing natural gifts he was able to win in spite of mediocre skills.

That's not entirely true. It depends on how you look at the lineal line after Michael Spinks vacated. Some consider Virgil Hill's defeat of Henry Maske as the beginning of the next line of succession, but a good amount trace the title through Roy Jones. The lineal championship at Light Heavyweight is very much a subject to dispute

Fair point. I'd argue that the best possible choice for creating a new line was Virgil Hill. Then he lost to Darius. Darius remained active until he lost to...I dunno? was it Tiozzo?

I guess one could make the argument that the crown remained vacant past Hill, but then how does Jones get THE claim over say Darius then?

It depends on how you look at it. The following is from someone who traces the title through Jones. I'm not supporting it personally. But it does make a lot of sense.

On 21st September 1985, Spinks made history by dethroning world heavyweight champion Larry Holmes and became the first lineal light heavyweight champion to topple a reigning lineal heavyweight title-holder.
Naturally, with heavyweight fame beckoning, he vacated his light heavyweight title and, predictably, there was mass confusion with the alphabet groups frantically filling vacancies like pigs at a trough.
Thereafter, there was no clear-cut lineage, and Boxing Illustrated magazine, which was naming one rightful world champion per division at the time, had their light heavyweight title vacant during this period.
Finally, in November 1996, something happened. WBA belt-holder Virgil Hill and IBF belt-holder Henry Maske fought each other in Germany on 23rd November and the winner was Hill. However, during the same month, Roy Jones beat Mike McCallum for the WBC belt. Jones had already beaten James Toney in 1994, who had been on an eye-catching winning streak; he had wins over Iran Barkley and Tim Littles amongst others (the needless super middleweight division is not recognized and therefore these were light heavyweight bouts). At this time, Jones was certainly the most talented fighter in the picture.
Some observers supported the Hill-Maske bout as being for the true world championship, but Jones could really not be discounted from the equation. In addition, a chain of succession existed; Hill had lost to Thomas Hearns on 3rd June 1991. Hearns was then beaten by Barkley, who was beaten by Toney, who was beaten by Jones.
On 13th June 1997, Hill lost to Dariusz Michalczewski, and Michalczewski embarked on a quest to face the most obscure opponents he could find. He fulfilled this quest by finding the likes of Darren Zenner and Muslim Biarslanov to pound on. Who were these guys? Maybe nobody knows. There was a strong argument that he essentially boxed his way out of contention by feasting on one soft touch after another. Why should he be rewarded for taking such an easy path?
Initially, the division needed a Jones-Hill bout to decide who would be the next rightful champ, but Jones lost to Montell Griffin on 21st March 1997. However, he beat Griffin in a rematch on 7th August the same year, and then there was hope for a Jones- Michalczewski match. But this wasn’t happening. While it could be argued that Michalczewski’s momentum disappeared as he continued to face no-hopers, Jones rose to greater heights after defeating Hill and Lou Del Valle.
Meanwhile, Reggie Johnson penetrated the scene with wins over William Guthrie, Ole Klemetsen and Willie Taylor, all decent opposition. Was this enough to overtake Michalczewski? At the very least he caught up with him and was on equal footing.
Johnson faced Jones on 5th June 1999, and this could be viewed as being for the vacant world championship. Any fight for the championship had to include Jones, who was an outstanding talent.

Ring Magazine is also another one who traces it through Jones

Well I must admit I like the starting point, simply denying the 168 division (my personal least favorite) exists in the first place!

But it really is an odd way to begin isn't it? I also got a kick out of the complaints about Darius (which are fair enough) and then justifies it because Jones fights...Lou Del Valle? Hadn't Lou lost to Virgil previously? Doesn't that render the rest of their argument regarding Hearns and Barkley etc kinda tough to support? Reggie Johnson was a good fighter, but HE's in the ring to determine the lineal champ? based on what?

Yeah Ring just got sick of Darius and said screw it and named Jones the guy after he beat Gonzales and Harmon.


I may just be outvoted here. The classy thing to do at this point would probably be to concede defeat.

Me? I'm gonna hold my breath and stomp my foot and see if that changes Ring Magazine and Boxing Illustrated's mind.

Got a question for you. Why Hill-Maske? Why pick up the lineal line with them? They certainly weren't the 2 best fighters in the division. So why? Is it because they each held a title? That can't be the case. You been pretty much dismissing titles (which I don't blame you) in every discussion. Going by that would be a contradiction. So I'm curious as to why start with Hill-Maske

[marbleheadmaui]

Let's look at Roy Jones as an example.
160-He beat BHOP for a vacant strap. At the time BHOP was the 8th ranked middle in the world. At the time the middles were a mess and stayed that way for another seven years. In NO sense was Jones CHAMPION here the way Hagler or Monzon was.
168-Again, an enormously muddled division. Jones claim rests on his defeat of James Toney. A GREAT win. But why was Toney a strapholder? he'd taken it from Tony Thornton, ranked #8 at 168. The lineal champion at that time was Michael Nunn who had taken the crown from Victor Cordoba who had taken it from Chris Tiozzo etc. Roy has no legit claim here either.
175-This one is easiest of all. Darius Michlashewski won, in the ring, every belt Roy held here. It was simply stripped because Darius wouldn't pay sanctioning fees...and Roy wouldn't fight him. Zero claim
Heavyweight-John Ruiz? Come on. Lennox Lewis was the lineal champ in a line going back all the way to Patterson.

A last point on Jones. He had monster TALENT, his skill set was seriously deficient. His footwork was awful, he had no jab, his balance was only ok, it's just that he was blessed with such amazing natural gifts he was able to win in spite of mediocre skills.

That's not entirely true. It depends on how you look at the lineal line after Michael Spinks vacated. Some consider Virgil Hill's defeat of Henry Maske as the beginning of the next line of succession, but a good amount trace the title through Roy Jones. The lineal championship at Light Heavyweight is very much a subject to dispute

Fair point. I'd argue that the best possible choice for creating a new line was Virgil Hill. Then he lost to Darius. Darius remained active until he lost to...I dunno? was it Tiozzo?

I guess one could make the argument that the crown remained vacant past Hill, but then how does Jones get THE claim over say Darius then?

It depends on how you look at it. The following is from someone who traces the title through Jones. I'm not supporting it personally. But it does make a lot of sense.

On 21st September 1985, Spinks made history by dethroning world heavyweight champion Larry Holmes and became the first lineal light heavyweight champion to topple a reigning lineal heavyweight title-holder.
Naturally, with heavyweight fame beckoning, he vacated his light heavyweight title and, predictably, there was mass confusion with the alphabet groups frantically filling vacancies like pigs at a trough.
Thereafter, there was no clear-cut lineage, and Boxing Illustrated magazine, which was naming one rightful world champion per division at the time, had their light heavyweight title vacant during this period.
Finally, in November 1996, something happened. WBA belt-holder Virgil Hill and IBF belt-holder Henry Maske fought each other in Germany on 23rd November and the winner was Hill. However, during the same month, Roy Jones beat Mike McCallum for the WBC belt. Jones had already beaten James Toney in 1994, who had been on an eye-catching winning streak; he had wins over Iran Barkley and Tim Littles amongst others (the needless super middleweight division is not recognized and therefore these were light heavyweight bouts). At this time, Jones was certainly the most talented fighter in the picture.
Some observers supported the Hill-Maske bout as being for the true world championship, but Jones could really not be discounted from the equation. In addition, a chain of succession existed; Hill had lost to Thomas Hearns on 3rd June 1991. Hearns was then beaten by Barkley, who was beaten by Toney, who was beaten by Jones.
On 13th June 1997, Hill lost to Dariusz Michalczewski, and Michalczewski embarked on a quest to face the most obscure opponents he could find. He fulfilled this quest by finding the likes of Darren Zenner and Muslim Biarslanov to pound on. Who were these guys? Maybe nobody knows. There was a strong argument that he essentially boxed his way out of contention by feasting on one soft touch after another. Why should he be rewarded for taking such an easy path?
Initially, the division needed a Jones-Hill bout to decide who would be the next rightful champ, but Jones lost to Montell Griffin on 21st March 1997. However, he beat Griffin in a rematch on 7th August the same year, and then there was hope for a Jones- Michalczewski match. But this wasn’t happening. While it could be argued that Michalczewski’s momentum disappeared as he continued to face no-hopers, Jones rose to greater heights after defeating Hill and Lou Del Valle.
Meanwhile, Reggie Johnson penetrated the scene with wins over William Guthrie, Ole Klemetsen and Willie Taylor, all decent opposition. Was this enough to overtake Michalczewski? At the very least he caught up with him and was on equal footing.
Johnson faced Jones on 5th June 1999, and this could be viewed as being for the vacant world championship. Any fight for the championship had to include Jones, who was an outstanding talent.

Ring Magazine is also another one who traces it through Jones

Well I must admit I like the starting point, simply denying the 168 division (my personal least favorite) exists in the first place!

But it really is an odd way to begin isn't it? I also got a kick out of the complaints about Darius (which are fair enough) and then justifies it because Jones fights...Lou Del Valle? Hadn't Lou lost to Virgil previously? Doesn't that render the rest of their argument regarding Hearns and Barkley etc kinda tough to support? Reggie Johnson was a good fighter, but HE's in the ring to determine the lineal champ? based on what?

Yeah Ring just got sick of Darius and said screw it and named Jones the guy after he beat Gonzales and Harmon.


I may just be outvoted here. The classy thing to do at this point would probably be to concede defeat.

Me? I'm gonna hold my breath and stomp my foot and see if that changes Ring Magazine and Boxing Illustrated's mind.

Got a question for you. Why Hill-Maske? Why pick up the lineal line with them? They certainly weren't the 2 best fighters in the division. So why? Is it because they each held a title? That can't be the case. You been pretty much dismissing titles (which I don't blame you) in every discussion. Going by that would be a contradiction. So I'm curious as to why start with Hill-Maske

Actually when they fought they were #'s 1 and 2 according to Ring Magazine IIRC. Maske had taken out Graciano, the Blade, Prince Charles and Virgil had beaten Tiozzo, Tate and Del Valle. The case isn't remotely ironclad, but it's a reasonable one in my view. It is also reasonable to say the title remained vacant until a later date. It becomes unclear to me then when a new line would begin that had a better case.