Does a draw count as a title defense?

You don't really think holyfield won the rematch do you?

 

I love the way Briggs spouts utter **** about being the "only heavyweight champion of the world with asthma"... because number one he needed a gift decision against a pensioner to win it, & number two... Tyson also had asthma.

 

He once said without asthma he'd be the goat lmao

Never knew that about tyson!

 

**** no

 

Lewis was The Champ going in, and a draw with his generally considered #1 contender, was a sound accomplishment.

 

Quite a distorted view of things.

Holyfield was the number 1 hw going in, after receiving a gift of a draw he left as the number 2.

Likewise lewis was the number 2 hw going in, after being robbed of a clear victory he left as the number 1 hw.

 

As an overall rating I would agree with you. But if we are trying to have Champions, then Lewis walked into the ring, the King, and out, as the Emperor of Heavyweight boxing.

Which always made we wonder why such a fuss was made of the decision. No damage was done, and if I was American, I would of been fuming that some of my tax dollars were wasted investigating the fight.

It is boxing, **** happens, always has, probably always will...

 

The only real way to view the hw scene is to concede that foreman vacated his belt when he refused to fight any top twenty opponents.

Too much emphasis is put on the lineal title and context is completely ignored. Being a champ has no worth if you're not regarded as the premiere fighter in your division.

Look at 96 ibf champ was moorer, wbc champ was lewis, wba champ was tyson, wbo champ I can't recall, lineal champ was briggs.

How anyone can say the lineal title meant more than the others during this period is complete crazy to me.

The reason a fuss was made was because the lineage meant nothing, it had been usurped and everyone considered holyfield the real champ. After a decade of claiming to be ducked lewis finally got his shot and controlled the champ only to be denied a clear victory.

 

I would have to disagree, lineage cannot be forfeited by a lack of quality fights or avoidance of a particular opponent or opponents.

So from a historical point of view, Lewis walked in and out champ.

And as for a clear victory...

Well I had Lewis winning, but have no doubt there have been far far worse decisions, hence I never understood the fuss.

 

Well from a historical point of view it was a unification and both walked in and out the champ of various belts (vander had the wba and ibf, lewis had the wbc and lineal).

The lineal title doesn't get forfeited, that's why too much emphasis is placed on it. You pretty much summed up everything wrong with the lineal belt. It has more overall validity then the alphabet belts but it still has it's flaws namely wrong decisions and lack of quality opponents not being penalised.

However you wanna spin it, the champ is the man at the top of the division and that man was never shannon.

There could be an argument that lewis's destruction of golota was enough to elevate him to top of the division but I prefer tyson's run pre holyfield.

Whether there have been worse decisions or not has no relevance. Lewis deserved to win the championship that night.

 

Consider Gene Fullmer with three draws during his reign as champion...how many champions in recent times have had as many draws in title defenses?

 

Very good question and i'll be interested to find out the answer.

I know johnson had a couple didn't he. Archie moore was champ for a decade he must had had a few draws?

 

I think the fact that NYSAC spent money investigating the fight, very much puts relevance on whether there have been worse decisions.

Lewis was the away fighter, and fought too cautiously, giving Holyfield too much respect.

Lewis did enough to deserve to keep his title, whatever one you want to tag him with. Lennox kept his title.

There was no need to investigate the fight, everyone was a winner. The fight got press, Lewis who was not everyone's cup of tea over here in Britain get a ton sympathy. And everyone made money in a rematch.

It was a rare thing in boxing, a no lose situation.

 

No it makes no relevance at all. A bad decision is still a bad decision whether or not there have been worse.

Yes he kept his paper titles but he should have successfully unified them with holyfields more legitimate titles.

Either way, as fans we can observe the fight, judge lewis to be superior to the man with the tag as hw king thus becoming the new king himself. It was apparent that holy wasn't the best hw anymore despite retaining his now paper titles whilst lewis retained his now legitimate titles.

It would just be better had the right man got the right decision.

I hope you can see why it's better for the right man to get the right decision.

 

Absolutely, and I wasnt alone either. The majority of the press did as well, and so did Foreman at ringside. People just seemed to think it was justice for the first decision which was bull****.