Talk:Longest reigning heavyweight champions
Is top 20 the appropriate number?
Just would like to hear some opinions some from other hardcore boxing fans, boxers, writers etc, if 20 is too much or too little, should the list include every champ in history? or maybe only top 10 or 15? or just leave it the way it is? cheers and god bless :)
No no:) I think and know that a top 20 it okay:)
Modern title Era & Universal title era
Just a random thought, when i was looking at tennis stats they had 2 separate era's, and it got me thinking. In a way boxing has 2 era's, the old Universal 1 championship per weight class era, and the alphabet title era where there's so many belts & more weight classes, but i guess there's allot of ways to look at it, would love to hear your thoughts guys :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussieswimmer (talk • contribs) 00:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Well that is true and I agree. But if you look at the list half of the boxers are from the Universal title are and the other half is from the Modern title era.
Yeah thats a good point, plus i find i funny how so many articles call it a weak division, however it has the most registered professionals than any other weight class. - Aussieswimmer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussieswimmer (talk • contribs) 00:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah the Heavyweight divison has always been the "best" and the most prestiuges one. Well it is only "weak" because the challengers to the Klitschko are so bad, compare to the Klitschko's. ^^David-golota (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Ali's 3 years of inactivity
Just curious should we really count his title reign while he was inactive for 3 years? It's only a few months longer than Vitali's absence that he took, while i wasn't alive at the time, dad says all the magazines regarded Frazier as the champ and Ali's comeback tune-ups fights before the first Frazier match ups weren't regarded as title defenses. Eager to hear other people's views. cheers and god bless — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussieswimmer (talk • contribs) 00:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
yeah I actually agree with you. Dont know why Ali has that. But on the other hand. He did not retire and James J. Corbett & Jess Willard was champions for 4 years and only made 1 defense. But Im split.David-golota (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
According to this list Vitali Klitschko and Muhammad Ali’s long title reigns do not count because of the three years of inactive between title defenses, and Brian Nielsen becouse he spent two years between defences. However it also list Jack Dempsey and John L. Sullivan as having reigned for 7 years despite the fact they were also inactive for over three years. It also list Jack Johnson (inactive for over 2 years), Jim Corbett (Inactive for over 3 years), and Jess Willard (inactive for 3 years). I would agree that Klitschko probably douse not deserve to be credited with a 7 year rein; however that is because he officially retired and the title was given to somebody else not because of inactivity. Either Ali and Nielson should be returned to the list or, Dempsey, Sullivan, Johnson, Carbett, and Willard should be removed from it. We need to apply the same qualifications to everyone on this list not pick and chouse.
Neilsen & Ali
Neislen is not on the main list because IBO is not a major organisation, there is no "return to the list" he was never on the list to begin with. Ali's title reign that went for 7 years was stretched out by the ring magazine belt which was not a major belt either (at the time) nor were his tune up fights before the Frazier loss regarded as real title defenses, therefore that is why they are not eligible.