Spinks Was still The Ring Magazine Champ..

I don’t think the bodies behind these belts have proven themselves trustworthy, honest, or competent. But if you do, so be it. Briggs was champ clearly (although not by fair decision) in my book.

 

You can win the vacant lineal title. Are you sure you’re familiar with how this works?

 

Agreed. What have the bodies behind these belts done to deserve priority recognition vs lineal? Not much, in my book.

 

Because Fury retired after beating Whyte. Spinks did not retire before fighting Tyson.

 

I value the belts a lot more than the "lineal" title with no belts attached to them. Again, I nor anyone in history views Tyson Fury's fights between Seferi, Pianeta, Schwarz or Otto Wallin as world title fights or defenses added to Fury's resume. Nor does any view a nearly 50 year old Foreman's fights between Crawford Grimsley or Lou Savarese as title defenses, especially when Foreman dropped the WBA and IBF while accepting the extremely sought after and prestigious "WBU and IBA" titles.

 

We’ll have to agree to disagree, then. C’est la vie.

 

Since when has any world champion belt been seen as trust worthy, honest or competent, there has always been some sort of corruption in boxing. The money always talks, boxing is in fact a business before a sport. Sometimes the boxers themselves are more corrupt and disingenuous than the organizations.

 

Well then why are you putting more stock in them than who beats the champ?

 

The true championship cannot be “stripped”. It’s all about preserving the history. No title has meaning except for its history.

 

I believe it's context more than anything. The "lineal" title can be worth more than an actual belt if the lineal champion was active, the clear number 1 in the division and was unfairly stripped or didn't accept the title(like Barrera not accepting the WBC title after the Morales bout). Ricky Hatton and Marco Antonio Barrera for example despite not holding any official belt at 126 or 140 were still seen as the clear number 1 in their division. Hatton had just beaten Kosta Tszyu and won the IBF/Lineal title, he won the WBA but was stripped of both titles for fighting in other divisions. He then comes back to 140 and defeats Paulie Malignaggi who was the IBF champion and top 3 in the division at the time despite being stripped himself of a belt. Marco Antonio Barrera had beaten undefeated Prince Naseem Hamed and Erik Morales at 126, he was clearly the best of the division regardless of any belt.

2016-2020 Tyson Fury, 97/98 Shannon Briggs and George Foreman on the other hand were inactive, not considered the best of their division and made a mockery of their division.

 

The lineal title continues if the champion retires and then the top two contenders fight for that vacant title. Marciano retired. The top two contenders fought and Patterson won. Patterson became the new and true champion.

 

If you believe no one views those fights as defenses you're simply wrong.

Furys fights with Seferi, Pianeta and Ngannou are the only 10 round title fights in at least 60 years and that will be duly noted by the history books. But they were defences. Pianeta was a Wladimir Klitschko opponent and Schwarz and Wallin were both undefeated. They were acceptable title opponents.

Grimsley and Savarese were both unbeaten. Briggs would go on to win a alphabet title regardless. They were not the worst title defenses ever. What seperates Grimsley and Savarese from one of Holmes inexperienced undefeated title opponents or Patterson fighting Tom McNeeley? I am not going to criticize someone who took out Frazier and Norton in 2 rounds for their level of competition. If Foreman wanted a few easy title defenses before riding off into the sunset he earned that.

 

Correct. Holmes gave up his WBC and only belt not to fight Page. He was still considered lineal for ages after that until Spinks beat him. It was extremely similar with Spinks.

 

Holmes legitimized the IBF when he did that move and the boxing world was forced to have to accept another belt.