1990s heavyweight tittle...

I think that The Ring belt disappeared during the 1990s and came back in the last decade.

The lineal title for the 1990s is bull****. Briggs was lineal champion, but nobody cared. He was presented as "the challenger" against Lewis.

Riddick Bowe threw the WBC belt to the trash can in 1993. Lewis became the WBC beltholder, but he wasn't the champ.

Nobody cared about the WBO title until the late 90s and early 00s.

The WBA and IBF also took bull**** decisions, but at least they were closest to the truth. Especially the WBA. After Foreman won the title, there's a mess until Holyfield became champ again, and then Lewis.

Between 1995 and 1997, all the ABC belts were wrong. In the whole decade (1990-1999), probably the WBA belt was the closest one to the truth: Tyson lost to Douglas, Douglas lost to Holyfield, Holyfield lost to Bowe, Bowe lost to Holyfield, Holyfield lost to Moorer, Moorer lost to Foreman, (two years of mess, then Holyfield becomes the man again in 1996), then Holyfield lost to Lewis.

Those men where the closest thing there was to a "champion" in the 1990s.

The 2000s is much easier. Lewis started the decade as champion, lost and regained the title against Rahman, then retired. On the second half of the decade, since 2006, Wladimir Klitschko became the man and then went on to be a dominant force, until today.

 

The majority was bad. Whatever Bowe did with his WBC belt he was still a credible champion by defeating a prime version of Holyfield. It was the washed up fighters that continued to get title shots, Seldon, Tucker, Mcall, Bruno, Foreman to some extent, Holmes against Mcall. So many of these fights were bogus Don King promoted farces as he was just trying to hold onto the titles waiting for Tyson to get out of the can.
Lennox Lewis earned his title shot by defeating Ruddock, but he fought a bogus challenger for the title than lost it to a bogus challenger who lost it to another unworthy challenger in Bruno.

 

Tyson lost to Douglas, who lost to Holyfield, who lost to Bowe, who lost to Holyfield, who lost to Moorer, who lost to Foreman. This is where it gets confusing.

I personally feel, after beating Bruno and Seldon, Tyson became the man, then lost to Holyfield, who lost to Lennox, who lost to then defeated Rahman, then Lennox retired.

Then it becomes confusing again. I think Vitali and Corrie Sanders met for a vacant WBC title, Vitali won it and defended a few times, then retired.

Then from 2006 onwards, Wlad Klitschko has been the man, however he hasn't started a new lineage, he's just the number 1 guy in the division.

 

Hasn't started a new lineage? What does that even mean?

Whoever beats wlad will be seen as the man.

 

The way I've always been told it works, when there isn't a lineal champion (belts become divided and guys avoid each other and so on) is that when the number 1 and number 2 fighters in the division meet, the winner starts a new lineage. Like Hill-Maske at LHW. Lewis-Holyfield at HW. Leonard-Hearns at WW, does that make sense? So because Wlad (no.1 or 2) hasn't faced Vitali, neither are the lineal champion. Instead, Wlad is just the consensus number 1, although some feel Vitali is better.

 

That's just an internet myth my friend.

Robinson v bell certainly wasn't 1 v 2. Nor was holmes v ali.

Lineal titles are all mythical and criteria varies. The only commonality is that the champ loses the belt in the ring (not something I agree with btw) but how he becomes the champ is very diverse if we're to go off historical precedents.

 

I never said they were. When they fought, Norton and Holmes were number 1 and number 2 HW's on the planet, that fight probably established Larry's lineage.

I have to disagree, in the alphabet title era, a lineage can be important. It is an indicator of who is the man. Often, the lineal champion is the true champion in a division.

 

As bad as they were in the 1990's the WBA since Lewis gave it up as been nothing less than a sham.

 

What about robinson and bell? They weren't 1 v 2.

The lineage is imaginary though! People make it up as they go along and there's no consensus drive.

Plus no way was briggs ever a true champion, nor was erdei, serrano etc.

The knockout artist lineage might be important to you which is fine, but as I said, people generally make this **** up as they go along.

 

I remember the WBO were regarded as a joke in US publications. I think they were taken a little more seriously elsewhere.

US magazines continually referred to their titles as WBO(gus) titles, and no recognition was given to them. I don't know how they're viewed today.