The weakest lineal heavyweight champ

I will add my voice to those defending Johansen.

Those putting his name forward sort of have a point, in that he was the only lineal heavyweight champion who ever relied primarily on a single punch. We cannot however regard him as a fighter who only had one good fight to win the title. His destruction of Edie Machen was an absolutely stunning victory, and one of the best of the era.

 

We might also consider who was least skilled among the candidates being considered.

Tommy Burns displays some good footwork in his filmed upset starching of Squires. A record setting 11 title defenses of the undisputed HW title in less than two years is just too much success for him to deserve mention here. Louis finally broke that record, but it wouldn't be surpassed again until Ali.

Carnera's jab sets him apart from other tall men of his era, like Buddy Baer. He demonstrates good technique in the way he pivots his right foot towards Sharkey with that right uppercut knockout blow. His jab did give Louis some early trouble.

Braddock evolved some decent skills he lacked earlier when he put together his career closing run. Braddock-Baer, Braddock-Farr and Louis-Braddock are readily available on-line for evaluation. The first four rounds of Louis-Braddock should always be scrutinized carefully. Does any version of Leon Spinks do better against a primed Bomber in that situation? [Remember: Evangelista almost stopped Leon in round two. Does Leon survive in that situation if Louis is in Alfredo's place?]

Is ANY lineal HW Champion clearly less skilled than Leon Spinks?

 

Johansen, Moorer and L. Spinks are the one's I think of.

My vote would go to Spinks.

 

Foreman, as well as being 45 years old, had been out of the ring for 18 months, and was coming off a loss to Tommy Morrison.
"Nobody else dominated Foreman quite like that during his second career" ... well, I think Holyfield certainly fought a better version of Foreman, a more active fighter, who hadn't yet taken the beatings that Holyfield and Stewart were to administer.
Anyway, it doesn't really count if you get KO'd as Moorer did.

His 2 fights for the linear championship were as weak as it gets, considering he was champion.
Outside of that, his level and accomplishments as a heavyweight are debatable.

 

My only issue with Johansson is that he ended up 1-2 against Patterson. I think he should have gone 2-0 against Patterson with no need for a rubber match. Others take the view that Patterson should have gone 1-0.

I believe Johansson squandered his talent. I believe he enoyed the night life and the stardom a little too much.

My issue with Patterson is that I'm not 100% convinced that he had earned the right to contest the vacant heavyweight championship on Marciano's retirement. The NY press helped him up the heavyweight ratings I believe. And as champion, some of his challengers were ridiculous (Rademacher !?) while other contenders were being ignored.

 

Foreman arguably beat Briggs 3 years later, at 48. Besides that, Moorer's resume is far deeper than Briggs.

Moorer win over Holyfield>all Briggs wins
Moorer ko'd Botha while Botha clearly beat prime Briggs (but was robbed)

 

It's a loaded question because the huge gaps in size. Tommy Burns was pound for pound far better than Briggs but does he beat him? Highly unlikely.

The pre 80's lower tier is Hart, Carnera, Braddock and Johansson.

The 80's and up alphabet gang is Leon and Briggs but Briggs has an asterisk to me as he had asthma and to even fight pro was an accomplishment.

 

The more I think about it, yes, Leon Spinks has to be the answer. He went in to his fight with Ali at 6-0-1. When he upset Ali, all contenders were drooling for their chance to get to him first.
I think Leon had skills and natural ability, just no experience, poor discipline, and was mismanaged. Plus he was a cruiserweight.
Leon never would've upset Holmes, Lewis, or the Klitschkos....ever wonder why no one chooses to see Ali's legacy being damaged a bit here?

 

Ali was old, already suffering from Parkinson's syndrome and really should not have been fighting anyone when he fought Spinks. That loss does nothing to damage his legacy.

 

Oh, so "The Greatest" loses to the weakest lineal champion in history...and it means nothing? How ironic.

 

Wlad glass chin kllitschko.

 

I didn't realise moorer had a lineal title, him.

Apart from being small, Burns has no place in this thread

 

I think it damages Ali's standing very slightly, as do some of his 'successful' defences in his second reign.
Sure, Ali was past his best and damaged goods, but he was also lazy, undisciplined and content to mug and clown for the crowd, making a mockery of the championship in some of those fights ... if we're honest.
Against challengers who really had no business fighting for the world title anyway !
I don't expect many to agree, because this is Muhammad Ali

 

I also used to think this but on closer study Floyd deserved it. He beat the best two heavyweights to establish himself as champion even if he leapfrogged a lot of rated Heavyweights to land the Jackson fight. Moore beat #1 valdes and #2 baker so he was #1. Baker beat valdes then Jackson beat Baker. This made Jackson and Moore the best two heavyweights in the world. Floyd knocked out both.

As champion Floyd had to rematch Jackson because he only squeaked past him in the eliminator. He knocked him out. By this time he had knocked out both Moore and Jackson there was no no one else.

He took the radmacher farce as an extra fight weeks after the Jackson win. Machen did not look like a good contender until he matched the Jackson result months later and because he drew with Foley Floyd was kind of forced to take unbeaten Harris over the two of them.

The next year Floyd took two fights within 3 weeks London and #1 Johansson. The timing was never right to fight either machen or Foley. After their draw Foley went away and lost to Cooper and machen lost to ingo, that's how he got the shot instead. London got the crack on account of beating pastrano but Cooper should have went ahead of him. Floyd later beat machen and Cooper anyway, he kind of left no stone unturned.

 

Not sure that the Leon fight specifically damages his standing as - at least for me Ali was just too far gone by that time for it to matter anyway - insofar as standings I always go on the guy essentially at the peak of his powers - his legacy is a little wobbly for some of the crappy opponents he fought but I don't let it impact actually on his actual standing as I go mainly on H2H generally but yeah I know what you mean about Ali embarrassing the title against a lot of people who had no business being there - for instance in his prime it was a disgrace that he defended against Brian London!!?? Now that was a joke - no even his own country would sanction him to fight Ali!?? There are many other examples too but yeah the same people who can over look these scruples generally are all to easy to knock for instance Jack Dempsey missing a guy who he would've arguably flatted in 2 rounds and/or Marciano fighting supposed old men in Walcott, Charles (!!) and Moore who were all ATGs??