The concept of the "lineal championship"

-No. Because Larry Holmes maintained his status as the Man with high profile defenses over other top 10 contenders.

-Now a question for you. Was Shannon Briggs considered the Man after defeating George Foreman? No, the public and the Ring Championed Holyfield, while the organizations recoginzed Evander and Lewis. Lineal Championship has value but its not the end all measuring stick. Briggs needed to beat Lewis and Holyfield to be considered the best, nobody gave a **** about Foreman's lineage unless. I'm not disputing lineage, just its worth.

What's the worth of a lineal title if its an irrelevant side show in Japan while Tyson and Holyfield have the world at their feet. Could you tell anybody with a straight face in 1997, that Evander still needs to beat Foreman to be seen as the best in the world?

 

Well Harry Greb wasnt black and he certainly was interested in fighting Dempsey

Valdes certainly should have got a shot in 54 ahead of Charles especially considering he had beaten Charles and was on a nice little run at the time.

Foremans THREE year reign was shabby but like Holmes did enough to float around in the mind. The guys he fought had a combined record of 106-1-1.
yes they were padded but they were passable. Holmes fought Witherspoon, Bey, Smith, Frazier, Williams and Frank in sucession and only Frank had 20 fights

 

Patterson wasnt the best Heavy in the world while he was champion in my opinion, nor was Johansen. Liston was, but he wasnt the champion. Ditto, Holmes was probably better than Ali circa 77-78
Lineage was restarted after Tunney and Marciano. Both in times when it was easier due to lack of sanctioning bodies and claimants. Lineage didnt stop with Ali as Homes beat him and it recommenced, as it did when Johnson beat Jefferies and Charles beat Louis

 

-During Dempsey's Hollywood exile, Tunney(who beat Gerb) and Willis had the greater claim. Also, again different times.

-And Valdez's people turned down a rematch with Charles, and next down, Satterfield got his spot in the title elimantor match. This is all irrelevant. We aren't talking about a Champion missing a few deserving contenders, we are talking about a Champion flat out losing his claim in the public's eye and falling into obscurity while other men more than filled the void.

-Were you following boxing in the late 90s? Nobody who did could write such a paragraph. All eyes were on Mike Tyson and Holyfield. None of Foreman's opponents were ranked by any major organization or even well known to the public, there was several gaps he was thought to even be retired. Bey was a top 5 opponent, the others had all found their way into the top 10. Holmes was the face of the Heavyweight division regardless. Tyson in 96 and Holyfield in 97 was the face of the division. And because you used the Spinks example, the Ring booted Foreman out of their top 10 by 96. There was not politics or B.S. involved, they were simply sick of his inactivity and lack of relevant opposition.

Foreman was a Champion in lineal title only, and again, you have to question the worth of that.

 

For the pure boxing fan lineage is relevant as it is the title that traces back prior to sanctioning bodies. Is the linear champion always the best fighter for the duration of their reign? No in instances they arent, Ali 77-78, Leon Spinks, Patterson and Johanson (Liston), Foreman and Briggs (as you have stated), It could be argued Michael Spinks and Buster Douglas werent the best while they held the linear title. That said it is the one title that is unaffected by the alphabet soup and one that can only passed on in the ring.

 

Tyson was relevant for a two year period post prison, Holy himself was considered shot heading into his bout with Tyson in 96. Bowe until Golota was considered by most at the time to be the best heavy and Lewis still had question marks over him. So yes i was following boxing in the mid-late 90s.

 

-In 1995 he was. Nobody thought that after the Golota fights and Tyson's wins over Seldon and Bruno in 96. Yeah, all that changed when Holyfield became the Man to Beat after he stopped Tyson.

-Yet you recall Foreman being relevant?

 

I recall him still being spoken of and Bowe, Holyfield, Tyson etc being interested in fighting him

 

-Lineage is a beautiful concept in theory but than you have someone like Foreman who essentially raped it to death.

-Neither was Rahman and completely irrelevant.

-I'm not a fan of the alphabet titles but they were certainly right to strip Foreman.

-This isn't debate as to rather Foreman lost his claim as the #1 Heavyweight in the World. There is no argument that he certainly did lose his claim to Tyson and Holyfield from 96-99. It might be the first time in Heavyweight History that the lineal title holder was completely buried and booted out of every major ranking. My question is what is the value of a lineal Championship if that can happen? In my opinion, not as much as you or Nay Sayer is making of it.

 

Maybe not Bowe at this stage.

But being name dropped as a possible long-shot opponent by everyone from Holyfield to the upstart Rahman isn't exactly the signature of the reigning undisputed Champion. There was never any talks of Foreman being the Man to Beat, the Top Dog, the Champion, just his lineage claim that every writer at the time was rightfully questioning the worth of.

I'm sorry, but if you are not seen as The Man to Beat, you aren't ranked by anyone credible, who the hell are you? The Lineal Champion? Big deal.

 

I really think when it comes to the Lineal Title for HW, we are looking at a situation we've never seen before. If Wlad beats Haye (like most are expecting). Then we are back to having both brothers with pretty good claims to it.

I think really only time will tell. If both keep winning until they both retire it will leave us all in a bit of a pickle. I really think time though will list the Klits as equals, with a shared reign of The Men who beat the other men.