Briggs should've never won lineal HW title and challenged Lewis' belt

Are there seriously very many people here who actually considered Shannon Briggs " The heavyweight champion of the world?"

 

Hate to say it, but I do.

It is one of the more bizarre anomalies thrown out by the system, but it still stands.

 

I don't hate to say it since it's factual history. Once we give in and say the lineal title means nothing then all world championships mean nothing. They only have a worth if linked to the belts history. Otherwise you or I can make up our own championship tomorrow and with no history behind it claim true world champions.

 

Did you follow boxing then?

Everyone in the world considered Holy and Lewis the top 2. Briggs might have beat the man who beat the man but during the 90's that was wholly worthless.

 

Briggs was World Heavyweight Champion. Foreman never retired; he never relinquished the title, only nearly worthless organizational belts.

No, neither Foreman nor Briggs were the best in the division when they were champions. There are other periods in boxing history we could all name when the champion wasn't the best. It gets sorted out over time. It's the way boxing works (or used to).

 

I don't. I don't follow the "Linear Champ." strictly in this case.

 

If we followed this logic a linear champ could retire. Then, he could comeback much later and lose to some scrub. Would you consider the scrub "linear champ." It really should be judged on a case by case basis. A blanket linear champ rule - "the man who beat the man" doesn't work for me.

 

Just try to understand that a title is only as good as the history behind it. The heavyweight champion does not need to be the best at any given time but what is vital is the fighter who is hwt champion needs to have beaten the former titleholder. This changes when a fighter retires. Then the two best needs to fight to determine the new champion. A true champion only loses his title when he retires or loses it in the ring.

 

The lineal title is overrated. It's ceremonial. It doesn't have concrete worth practically. It's for the purists and idealists.

 

Foreman wasn't fighting any of the top fighters. He relinquished his claim to the lineal title when he failed to defend it against the division's best.


The public considered Evander Holyfield the legitimate champion after he beat Tyson in 1996. Holyfield was viewed as the champ until his losses to Lennox Lewis.

 

You can't relinquish the lineal title unless you retire. Understand the whole idea is to make the worlds championship something very special linked constantly to its history and not thrown around. Foreman beat Moore and Moorer had beat Holy who had beaten Douglas who had beaten Tyson.

 

Not accepting the true championship would be like not accepting the World Series baseball championship in the U.S. There is so much history behind that championship as well. Let's say I decide to develop another baseball championship not including any of the current teams just say AAA teams and called it the WBA (world baseball association). Does my championship hold the same value as the current? Of course not and it never will. The championship title is only as good as the history behind it. Otherwise let's all start handing out belts and calling everyone a champion.

 

Fair enough, but I'd say that he has a pretty weak case. Foreman had already been stripped of his crown years earlier, was approaching 50 years of age and arguably deserved the decision. I guess its a marginal case where he can be considered the lineal champ, but it has to be one of if not THE weakest case in heavyweight boxing history.

 

I don't think that's the case at all. He beat the undisputed lineal champion to win the title. He is then champion until he loses or retires. Period.

 

Undisputed my ass. He had been stripped two and a half years earlier for failure to meet mandatory challenges and barely getting by winning controversial decisions over second rate contenders. In 1997 the heavyweight champion of the world was Evander Holyfield. Christ ring magazine didn't even have George in its top 10 by that point. This hype about the lineage is a very old and unwritten rule, and one that was primarily designed to protect white men from relinquishing the title to black men.. Not something that particularly applied by the 1990's.