School me on Dariusz Michalczewski ...

The only dummy is you and your **** weak "Foreman/Briggs were not best" argument. "best" is just an opinion, e.g. Lennox Lewis was "best" from 92-04.

 

Boxing is a subjective sport, dummy.

Briggs winning the fight against foreman was the judges opinions.

Which fight was more meaningful in your opinion, foreman v briggs or holyfield v tyson?

Please give an answer as simple as possible so I can understand it with my puny brain

 

Really? I didn't know that. Thanks for sharing. Maybe we should start dismissing official results altogether.

Meaningful? Foreman-Briggs, because it took the championship from that fat conman who'd been outrageously abusing his position as champion for the previous 2 years.

 

Well surely your own judgement on a fight is more important than the judges judgement on the fight?

Foreman was a paper champion if ever there was one he refused to fight a ranked opponent and briggs still needed a gift to beat him but if you think that fight is more historically significant than holyfield twice stopping tyson you are absolutely crazy

 

On a Friday night sometimes I settle down with a few beers in front of my big flatscreen and have myself an Ottke marathon, followed by a Michalzewski marathon, topped off with the career box-set of Zsolt Erdei. As an aperitif I watch a little prime Sturm and maybe a couple Dzindiruk battles. Oh, how I thrill at the high guard! Nothing says boxing excitement more to than Ulli Wegner, that grand master of the Euro-style.

All in all, it's scintillating stuff. The leaping lead left hooks, the hand-speed, the gorgeous footwork and head-movement, the razzle-dazzle, the German crowd oohing and ahhing, the Teutonic atmosphere, everything!

 

The few controversial decisions which do happen have to be accepted. All the fans can hope for is a rematch. Foreman's bs bit him in the ass.

No, Foreman was the true, legitimate world champion. The championship could be traced back to Patterson winning the title after Marciano's retirement. Because The Ring had stopped recognizing champions, and the abc titles floating around, Foreman could get away with making a mockery of the title, and the casual fans all but forgot about him being champion.

Foreman's "reign" is the rare exception, so it's a hopeless argument against the Lineal title.

 

Why should they be accepted? If you think a man won, it shouldn't matter what 3 men at ringside think.

Traced back to patterson? Are you mental? Ali retired his paper belt. That particular lineage ended there.

Rare exception? How about michael spinks from 86-88?

Check the history of the lhw division, it happened shitloads there. The lesnevich title reign was an absolute farce.

Foreman was no true champion, paper championship at it's worst. he got a gift against schulz, took a long vacation and didn't fight a single ranked opponent the rest of his career.

you don't think briggs was the defending champion against lewis do you his gift against foreman surely doesn't mean as much to you as holyfield stopping tyson and mm in 97

Your true championship can flow through dinosaur robberies if you want.

Do you consider calzaghe a mere titleholder at lhw as well?

 

What other answer is there? There's no other way.

What?? Ali was still recognized as champion when he was banned. Frazier beat him to win the title when he came back. Then Holmes later beat Ali to be recognized by The Ring in 1980.

What?? Spinks defended against Holmes, Cooney, Tangstad, and Tyson. Hardly comparable to the Foreman disgrace .

I'll give you 3 guesses why.

:roll: Foreman won the title where it mattered. Period. He pulled all that **** afterwards

Of course Briggs was the defending ****ing champion. Are you ******ed? You can't just pick and choose your own rules here, noob.

When Tyson-Holyfield was signed it didn't have anywhere near the significance it does now, but that's another issue.

The Ring's recent 175lb title has all been spelled out before.

 

Top 15 ATG German LHW, who RJJ was afraid to fight and only loss to Julio G due to catching AIDS

 

What other answer is there? Give credit for performances based on your own judgement.

No ali retired in 70 you silly person. He retired again in 80 after getting gift after gift and splitting a series with leon spinks.

He came out of retirement to challenge holmes. He was riddled with parkinson's.

have you seen the holmes-spinks rematch? Tangstad and cooney do you even watch boxing or are you quickly scrolling through boxrec?

Here's another one, see if you can figure out why serrano was a paper champ

Because he lost to his number 1 contender 3 pounds above the limit, that's why.

You think briggs was a more relevant heavyweight than holyfield or lewis in 98? You have to be trolling now.

The holy-tyson rematch was by far the biggest fight in the division between the two top hw's.

Well nunn was a lineal claimant much longer than joe c in the smw division, he even defended his true pure all important lineal claim, should he be remembered as a more accomplished smw

 

Now you're just talking shite. Everyone knows the troubles Ali had during his first reign. The Lineage From Ali to Frazier, and from Ali to Holmes has never been denied. Even The Ring got it right.

Yes. The only boxrec **** here is you. I'm certain you're another noob who had no idea how the Lineage even works. Comparing Spinks' reign to Foreman's is laughable. Adding smileys will never give you a chance to win this either.

You're the one talking about relevence. Briggs was the Lineal champion. Accept it.

Actually, Nunn was Lineal champion at middleweight, then super middleweight, though 168lbs was still a new division. Something else I doubt you were aware of. And no, he's not as accomplished as Sugar Joe for that, you stupid twat.

 

Roid Jones ran from Michalczewski for years! Refused huge payday..........

 

Oh dear frazier v ellis mean anything to you?

So even though ali retired, you still think he was the champ?

What was so special about tangstad and cooney to set then apart from savarase and grimsley

You don't know who serrano was and why his paper championship was a sham do you

What about vasquez, what do you think about his "championship reign"

Yes relevance, what's more relevant, holyfield beating tyson in 97 (top two hw's in the world) or briggs getting a gift from big george (two unranked hw's)?

Yes I know, he sparked sumbu in 1. If your lineage is so important why is sugar joe considered the smw goat? Liles and nunn did far better from a lineal viewpoint! Or is lineage not as important now?

Sugar joe only having 1 fight in his whole career involving the lineal championship even baldomir can beat that

 

Retired when? The Linege isn't up for debate here.

Had Foreman defended against, say, Holyfield and Lewis during his "reign", then you could compare it to Spinks' reign. See the difference? Probably not.

Not bothered to look him up. He must be your 1 example compared to the 100 of mine.

Vasquez? Good champion.

Holyfield and Tyson top two? No, not with Lewis there. Briggs wasn't a relevant heavyweight, but he won the Lineal title and immediately defended against the great Lewis.

What are you waffling on about now you dumb ****? You'e the one talking about importance. Calzaghe cleaned out the division and became the irrefutable champion. Clown.

 

1970. Look up frazier v ellis.

Then again after beating the mighty leon spinks he retired.

Point is both were paper champions. Ironically both paled in comparison to the same man.

130 pounds is your clue.

Oh dear i'll help you out here. What part of vasquez's featherweight title reign was good?

Ofcourse there are many occasions where the guy with the lineal claim is the best in the division. There are enough when he isn't. The more research you do the more often you see this happen. Lineage aint the be all and end all, kid. That's why I don't care who has the lineal claim, it's not the best measuring stick.

Especially if you rely on cbz. It is quite erroneous. I haven't checked it for a few months because it's mistakes really annoyed me. Does it list garcia as mw champ going into the armstrong fight? It should do because he had the lineage.

You're starting to learn now

Despite only having 1 lineal fight joe c is clearly the smw goat. He was the best out there for ages and he cleaned out the division aside from ottke and beyer. Lineage, today is not very important.

In an ideal world it would be the championship system, unfortunately our world aint ideal.