The concept of the "lineal championship"

Who had beaten Foreman after his KO over Moorer?

Titles are won and lost in the ring, Genius.

Here are the FACTS.

The lineage of the HW title goes like this;

Patterson--> Liston--> Clay--> Frazier--> Foreman--> Ali--> L Spinks--> Ali--> Holmes--> M Spinks--> Tyson--> Douglas--> Holyfield--> Bowe--> Holyfield--> Moorer--> Foreman--> Briggs--> Lewis--> Rahman--> Lewis--> VACANT.

1 + 1 = 2

 

Which is why lineage by your defintion is worthless.

Holyfield and Tyson were the top dogs of 96, everyone than and now knows that. Foreman/Grimsely was a sideshow attraction, nobody gave a "****" rather he sparked out Moorer once upon a time. All eyes were on Evander Holyfield. Again, you have truely spoken like a man who does not follow the sport or have much real interest in it.

If you were a fan of the sport than tell me "Was anybody saying Holyfiled now needs to beat Foreman to prove he's the number one Heavyweight?" Hell no, get real.

 

You two collectively have the IQ equivilent to room temperature - on a cold day...

 

Nay Sayers lineage is correct and it is not worthless as it is the only line that is traced back through the greats. Sanctioning bodies manipulate rankings and media hype promotes hometown heroes. Lineage is important as it is the purest measurement, beat the man who holds the title. The same principle as when there was only one title. The one title that the linear concept stems from

 

-Was anyone arguing that Holyfield needed to fight Foreman in 1997 to be the man? I don't think so. Sorry, the claim is worthless.

-You can't beat the man if he goes into hiding for 4 years, refusing to face anyone outside of Shulz, Grimsely, Savarese, and becomes an afterthought sideshow attraction nobody wants to pay to see.

-The media, public, and fans will not and should not stand for this. They will look elsewhere as they did to Tyson and Holyfield.

You cannot be the man if you are not relevant. Lennox Lewis was not the man until he beat Holyfield. Forgive me, but only a nuthugger would trump up the Briggs win as the true Championship and #1 spot. If Briggs held on to the title for the next 4 years, refused to face Lewis or Evander and defended once every two years agianst Grimsely and Shulz types, would you still hold this opinion? I think not. As a fan of Lewis or the sport in general you would no doubt be upset by this and just rightfully recognize the Lion as the man as he took out the top dogs. You would be like "**** Briggs, let him keep his so called lineage." This was EVERYONE's attitude regarding Foreman by 1996.

 

You're in the wrong folder. General is the above link.

:hi:

 

Dempsey didnt fight a lot of contenders, Holmes didnt fight Thomas, Page or Dokes, Marciano never fought Wallace, Valdez, Baker etc.
Should we rewrite history and take their titles away???? Like it or not Foreman held the linear title from the time he beat Moorer till Briggs beat him. The same title and only title that can be traced back to Patterson in a direct line.
Speaking of Tyson even the Ring still had Spinks as champion until June 88 when Tyson beat him, as did many boxing afficianados, so no they didnt look elsewhere. Why did Lewis find it so important to fight Briggs??? It is because it meant something to be the Linear Champion

 

-The only person who could challenge Dempsey's claim as the best fighter in the world during his celebrity exile was black...and that just wasn't acceptable. Different times, man. The people were willing to wait for Tunney.

-Marciano defended twice a year to the Ring and Boxing Association's #1 or #2 contender. Every opponent was usually recogonized as the top two by the public, writers, and every other major organization. You are way off on that one, pal.

-Holmes didn't always face his #1 or #2, but he did enough to keep the public's favor and image as the Champion.

-Foreman failed to do this as Tyson and later Holyfield established themselves as the best fighters in the world. While big George became a joke.

-I've made no claims regarding Spinks/Tyson. Only in reference to 96, with Tyson taking the claim by cleaning out the title holders while Foreman fell off the radar.

-Of course beating Briggs meant something, just not everything.

 

Boxing is littered with dubious decisions. Are you going to rewrite history for every decision YOU think is wrong? Those are the official recorded and accepted results that is fact. Just as you dont agree with them there are people out there that watched the same fights and think the decisions were fine.
You asked in OP why is Wlad not considered the linear champ? The simple answer is his title can not be linked back directly to the same one held by Ali, Tyson, Frazier, Liston etc.
When Holmes was dumped the WBC title and accepted the IBF title did Witherspoon become the real champion? Holmes never held the WBA title nor did he fight their champions Dokes, Coetzer or Page, should we disregard him as the real champion??

Your views on results are opinions therefore have no more validity than mine or anyone elses, there are many fights that i disagree with the official results but on fighters records they still stand. Nay sayers lineage is undisputable each of the fighters listed inflicted the first loss on the previous champion after that champion won the title