BoxRec

crusader wrote:

drunkenpiper36 wrote:This is highly subjective as there are few cruiserweights who have made a significant impact on boxing history. But I have the #2 spot as a tie between David Haye and Carlos Deleon.. David Haye is the only cruiser aside from Evander Holyfield who really had a dominant unified reign, while Carlos Deleon was the very first recognized champion since the division's creation, along with being its only four time belt holder.. Other guys like Huck, Qawi, Norris, Crous, and several others were certainly top 10 candidates, but none of them have standout achievements at that weight, and some of their stays were too short to rank highly.

Really? Haye became unified champion in his first world title bout then had only one more fight at CW.

How many other unified cruiser champions have there been? How many worthy contenders did he vacate the division without facing?

drunkenpiper36 wrote:

crusader wrote:

drunkenpiper36 wrote:This is highly subjective as there are few cruiserweights who have made a significant impact on boxing history. But I have the #2 spot as a tie between David Haye and Carlos Deleon.. David Haye is the only cruiser aside from Evander Holyfield who really had a dominant unified reign, while Carlos Deleon was the very first recognized champion since the division's creation, along with being its only four time belt holder.. Other guys like Huck, Qawi, Norris, Crous, and several others were certainly top 10 candidates, but none of them have standout achievements at that weight, and some of their stays were too short to rank highly.

Really? Haye became unified champion in his first world title bout then had only one more fight at CW.

How many other unified cruiser champions have there been? How many worthy contenders did he vacate the division without facing?

That's not really the question, how is 2 or 3 fights a dominant reign?

Qawi or DeLeon have to both be considered as the #2 Cruiser of all-time. I also think Anaclet Wamba is underrated as well. Nobody even talks about him anymore.

That's not really the question, how is 2 or 3 fights a dominant reign?

Quite simply because he was undisputed and there was nobody left in the division for whom anyone would have given a chance against him. He had unified the title ( or at least most of it, given that there are two thousand titles these days. ) He had beaten the best cruiserweights. A dominant reign does not always have to equate to a LONG reign. Liston's reign was dominant yet short lived too. Prior to Muhammad Ali coming along ( whom Sonny was heavily favored to beat ), all of the best heavy's had fallen..... Simple as that.

drunkenpiper36 wrote:

That's not really the question, how is 2 or 3 fights a dominant reign?

Quite simply because he was undisputed and there was nobody left in the division for whom anyone would have given a chance against him. He had unified the title ( or at least most of it, given that there are two thousand titles these days. ) He had beaten the best cruiserweights. A dominant reign does not always have to equate to a LONG reign. Liston's reign was dominant yet short lived too. Prior to Muhammad Ali coming along ( whom Sonny was heavily favored to beat ), all of the best heavy's had fallen..... Simple as that.

This makes very little sense. He wasn't dominant in length or in results. Rate him however you want, calling him a dominant champion doesn't hit the mark by any definition.

Huck, Cunningham and Adamek were around. Did he beat them?

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

drunkenpiper36 wrote:

That's not really the question, how is 2 or 3 fights a dominant reign?

Quite simply because he was undisputed and there was nobody left in the division for whom anyone would have given a chance against him. He had unified the title ( or at least most of it, given that there are two thousand titles these days. ) He had beaten the best cruiserweights. A dominant reign does not always have to equate to a LONG reign. Liston's reign was dominant yet short lived too. Prior to Muhammad Ali coming along ( whom Sonny was heavily favored to beat ), all of the best heavy's had fallen..... Simple as that.

This makes very little sense. He wasn't dominant in length or in results. Rate him however you want, calling him a dominant champion doesn't hit the mark by any definition.

Huck, Cunningham and Adamek were around. Did he beat them?

Adamek was beaten in 2007 by Dawson, and was spending most of the year at light heavyweight leading up to the time when Haye vacated the division. Marco Huck was nobody until about 2009, when Haye was long gone. Cunningham is the only one I don't know about... But I agree with your statement that our opinions differ, so I'll leave it at that.

drunkenpiper36 wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

drunkenpiper36 wrote:
Quite simply because he was undisputed and there was nobody left in the division for whom anyone would have given a chance against him. He had unified the title ( or at least most of it, given that there are two thousand titles these days. ) He had beaten the best cruiserweights. A dominant reign does not always have to equate to a LONG reign. Liston's reign was dominant yet short lived too. Prior to Muhammad Ali coming along ( whom Sonny was heavily favored to beat ), all of the best heavy's had fallen..... Simple as that.

This makes very little sense. He wasn't dominant in length or in results. Rate him however you want, calling him a dominant champion doesn't hit the mark by any definition.

Huck, Cunningham and Adamek were around. Did he beat them?

Adamek was beaten in 2007 by Dawson, and was spending most of the year at light heavyweight leading up to the time when Haye vacated the division. Marco Huck was nobody until about 2009, when Haye was long gone. Cunningham is the only one I don't know about... But I agree with your statement that our opinions differ, so I'll leave it at that.

No worries, you're a good poster. Just don't agree with the wording.

(Guillermo) Jones had a belt around that time as well, having won it from Arslan, a guy who was somewhat dismissed at the time but now seen as a credible contender, go figure.

I'd agree Haye was a hell of a fighter at the weight, and I think on his best night he'd be a danger to pretty much anyone there. But I think "dominant run" usually would suggest a time where not only did the fighter beat every threat, but stayed at that level for some time.

He was certainly dominant over the guys he fought there, Thompson debacle aside. But I think Jones and Cunningham at the time were real threats.

He didn't dominate Mormeck. I had money on him and it was a big worry during the fight, especially when he was on the deck.

drunkenpiper36 wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

drunkenpiper36 wrote:

Quite simply because he was undisputed and there was nobody left in the division for whom anyone would have given a chance against him. He had unified the title ( or at least most of it, given that there are two thousand titles these days. ) He had beaten the best cruiserweights. A dominant reign does not always have to equate to a LONG reign. Liston's reign was dominant yet short lived too. Prior to Muhammad Ali coming along ( whom Sonny was heavily favored to beat ), all of the best heavy's had fallen..... Simple as that.

This makes very little sense. He wasn't dominant in length or in results. Rate him however you want, calling him a dominant champion doesn't hit the mark by any definition.

Huck, Cunningham and Adamek were around. Did he beat them?

Adamek was beaten in 2007 by Dawson, and was spending most of the year at light heavyweight leading up to the time when Haye vacated the division. Marco Huck was nobody until about 2009, when Haye was long gone. Cunningham is the only one I don't know about... But I agree with your statement that our opinions differ, so I'll leave it at that.[/quote]

There was tons of talk about Haye facing Cunningham after Haye won the title from Mormeck. Haye kept talking about himself being undisputed but Cunningham had been traveling the world beating top 10 cruisers for years. Haye clearly didn't like the risk/reward Steve brought to the table. Ditto with Adamek, who after he became champ sent Haye numerous offers to fight at heavyweight, but Haye didn't like that risk either.

Bobbyptsd wrote:(Guillermo) Jones had a belt around that time as well, having won it from Arslan, a guy who was somewhat dismissed at the time but now seen as a credible contender, go figure.

I'd agree Haye was a hell of a fighter at the weight, and I think on his best night he'd be a danger to pretty much anyone there. But I think "dominant run" usually would suggest a time where not only did the fighter beat every threat, but stayed at that level for some time.

He was certainly dominant over the guys he fought there, Thompson debacle aside. But I think Jones and Cunningham at the time were real threats.

Fair enough

I think that Juan Carlos Gomez was a strong cruiserweight who could probably beat anyone in the division besides Holyfield.. and Haye is decent as well....