10 Most Accomplished of My Lifetime

[marbleheadmaui]

I can't see how you can leave out Roy Jones jr and then there is Bob Foster who was Light Heavy king from 1968-1974 and only lost to Ali and Frazier in that time.

Outside of Charles and maybe Spinks I dont really see many having a shot.

I assume you mean against Jones. See I think a really good technician like say a Harold Johnson would use his craft to beat Jones handily. MAB gave us a great example when he beat Hamed what happens when good talent plus craft runs into great talent with technical flaws. I mean Hamed was faster, stronger, had better reflexes and got crushed.



The list of guys at 175 who'd give Jones real trouble I think is double digits.

What I wonder about with Jones is had he been born in 1922 and HAD to learn his craft to survive in the 1940's, how amazing could he have become? THAT is a scary proposition!

Both testicles for a time machine. Ok 1. Make it the left one. No right. Just cut one off.

LOL! Yeah me too...I might give up an ear as well!

[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]

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

[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

[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.

[marbleheadmaui]

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

I think the last guy who clearly was that was probably the guy who beat Gaby Canizales who beat Sandoval who beat Jeff Chandler who beat Sol;is who beat Lujan who beat Zamora who beat I dunno. Paningo? From Columbia? Maybe Venezuela? I think (could be wrong) he retired.

I think one could argue pretty convincingly that Rafael Marquez did enough to begin a new line, but he never lost and moved up too. So THEN who are we left with? Hawsegawa? I guess the question is do you think he did enough to start a new line. He had big wins over Sahaprom, but Sahaprom had never faced Raffy and I think was the weaker beltholder in terms of competition faced. So I don't think Nonito gets there...YET.

But I think the winner of Nonito the Mares/Agbeko victor is going to have a pretty good claim.

[Ghost]

Don't expect a fast answer. I will have to give this some thought. The first fight I watched live was Ali/Chuvalo in 66 lol. In addition the hockey playoffs are on.

Damn. You're OLD!

Perhaps. Perhaps you were 20 when you watched Ali/Quarry lol which would make me quite young.

LOL, I'm 47.

Then you are young.

[Fenster]

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.

However silly the alphabets are, they generally help in pointing out the best fighters in a particular divison, and certainly seem to play a role in helping to define a new linage.

Would this linage had been considered had there been no title unification on the line? Would it have been considered had Hill not already beaten the current WBC champion Tiozzo?

Seems to me the WBA, IBF and WBC titles strongly influenced the creation of a new MAN.

[marbleheadmaui]

However silly the alphabets are, they generally help in pointing out the best fighters in a particular divison, and certainly seem to play a role in helping to define a new linage.

Would this linage had been considered had there been no title unification on the line? Would it have been considered had Hill not already beaten the current WBC champion Tiozzo?

Seems to me the WBA, IBF and WBC titles strongly influenced the creation of a new MAN.

I think your initial assertion is simply wrong. Here is a partial list of current alphabet strapholders who aren't remotely among the best fighters in there division.

Guillermo Jones, Beibut Shumenov, Dimitri Sartison, Gennady Golovkin, Hassan, Njikam, Austin Trout,
Saul Alvarez, Cornelius Bundrage, Soulyman M'bye and I'm still at 147 and above.

When Manny beat MAB, there was no alphabet strap on the line. Just MAB's win over Hamed over vasquez over Rojas and all the way back to Eusabio Pedroza.

Let me try it this way. What do the alphabet belts do positively that the Ring rankings don't? I'd argue nothing. Yet they cost the sport in a big way by diluting what Champion means. I really believe this is one thing that has driven the casual fan away. When I was growing up in the horse and buggy days, even a casual fan could tell you who the middleweight and welterweight champions were. Even the fans who only cared about the biggest fights knew they were getting the goods when a fight was fairly labelled "for the undisputed lightweight championship of the world." Serious fight fans (like me) could name the champ division by division. Today? NOBODY could remember the 100 names of guys who have belts and casual fans have no way to know, outside of the true event fights, which ones are real championship fights and which are fiction.

[DaxxKahn]

Pernell Whitaker- This guy was slick as hell in the ring...I wish he was prime today a bout against Mayweather would be a boxing fans dream in terms of tecnique...was a world champion in one form or another for almost a decade....one of the greatest boxers of all time who until his later years when he stopped training as hard as he partied he was unbeatable

Roberto Duran- Over 100 career wins, was champion in 4 weight classes, had some of the most memorable fights win or lose of the last 40 years, tough as nails and overtime we thought he was done at an elite level he came back to prove the world wrong...The announcement of his name gave fans goosebumps because they knew they were in for a war...Was one of the most intimidating fighters of all time as well

Floyd Mayweather JR- Love him or hate him you can not deny his skill set and the fact he has claimed world titles in 5 weight classes, one of the most defensively skilled fighters ever. Can be exciting if he chooses but no matter what he gives us some sort of clinic against elite opponents one of the era biggest draws recently long time pound for pound best one of the ATG's and most successful fighters period let alone of my time

Manny Pacquiao- Again Love him or hate him the man holds titles in 8 different weight classes, has fought and beaten some of our eras biggest legends...only legitimate loss in his career is against Morales (You cant count losses at 15,16 yrs old in bouts against grown men) Only truly tested against JMM...Made himself a legend by battering bigger men.....An international celebertiy that just adds attention to the sport...pound for pound kingpin like Floyd one of the most successful fighters ever not just of my generation

Of course you can't count those losses. Mainly cuz he wasn't even fighting at that age. His early losses were at 19 (to a 23 year old) and 21 years old (against a fellow 21 year old). I don't why people always trying to exaggerate shit. He's obviously improved as a fighter. But the losses count

I don't know why people try to pretend they are internet gangsters trying to convince people they are scary frightening individuals meanwhile they are grown men looking ore like Jamie Kennedy in Malibu's Most wanted but they do

[DaxxKahn]

Pernell Whitaker- This guy was slick as hell in the ring...I wish he was prime today a bout against Mayweather would be a boxing fans dream in terms of tecnique...was a world champion in one form or another for almost a decade....one of the greatest boxers of all time who until his later years when he stopped training as hard as he partied he was unbeatable

Roberto Duran- Over 100 career wins, was champion in 4 weight classes, had some of the most memorable fights win or lose of the last 40 years, tough as nails and overtime we thought he was done at an elite level he came back to prove the world wrong...The announcement of his name gave fans goosebumps because they knew they were in for a war...Was one of the most intimidating fighters of all time as well

Floyd Mayweather JR- Love him or hate him you can not deny his skill set and the fact he has claimed world titles in 5 weight classes, one of the most defensively skilled fighters ever. Can be exciting if he chooses but no matter what he gives us some sort of clinic against elite opponents one of the era biggest draws recently long time pound for pound best one of the ATG's and most successful fighters period let alone of my time

Manny Pacquiao- Again Love him or hate him the man holds titles in 8 different weight classes, has fought and beaten some of our eras biggest legends...only legitimate loss in his career is against Morales (You cant count losses at 15,16 yrs old in bouts against grown men) Only truly tested against JMM...Made himself a legend by battering bigger men.....An international celebertiy that just adds attention to the sport...pound for pound kingpin like Floyd one of the most successful fighters ever not just of my generation

Sweet Pea and Duran though again my resons are better

Floyd's "skill set" has never, by his own choices, been fully vetted (unlike everyone else on my list). Being a great defender against an over the hill Oscar or a good, but not great JL Castillo just isn't the same thing as performing against a Chavez or an Azumah (Sweet Pea) or against a Duran or Hagler (Leonard). It is all about competition level.

The eight belt garbage about Manny is just that, garbage. he has a legit claim at 112, 126, 130 and 140. Amazing

Who cares who's reasons are better or why people have them there...You should have added to your post...Please post your opinions so I can mkae comments and tell you why my reasons are better then yours give it a rest your impressing no one

You are trying to pull apart Floyd Mayweather JR's accomplishments?....Manny has held world title is 8 divisions FACT.....Sorry but your not going to find too many undisputed world champions today...You are trying to pull apart the career of RJJ....Just the fact you are even ATTEMPTING to pull those names apart is proof you are a guy who thinks his opinion is all that matters....DLH is one of if not the most accomplished fighters in boxing.....How many times in two post are you going to say "MY LIST"...or "My reasons are better"?....are yu sure your 47? you come off like a little kid comparing a new toy.....If you really are 47 then you should find a hobby....Unless all the other 47yr olds stopped playing with you because everytime you lose its "I am taking my toys home"....You started off with a decent topic then turned it into a way to try and show off or act as if your a boxing guru...your not

[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

[johnsebastianmiran]

I see your list and my compliments but remove the PAC for one reason, he's not done yet and for those that like the other guy, forget him for now because you can make all the comparisons in the world but the other guys are through and they can be judged by the fans. PAC or Floyd have plenty of time to prove greatness but the cards have to be dealt before they can play and they are still holding.