Thoughts on Shannon Briggs as Linear Champion

A fluke. Foreman was robbed.

 

Linear titles are overrated to a degree. The person who beats the person that beat the person is an important recognition. It's just that some times, the person retires. Sometimes the person wins officially; but loses unofficially, and loses public credibility. Sometimes the person ducks a certain other person, and that other person amasses a better recent win column.

Boxing is a what have you done for me lately kind of sport. It is important to attempt to maintain a lineal succession, but more important to make sure worthy challengers get their dues.

 

Briggs was NEVER my lineal / linear champion............................. Foreman was butt-reamed hard back in '97...............

MR.BILL

 

Foreman had his day and was wanted out in boxing. He give the fans a show and they got what they wanted and didn't want the liability of an old man getting hurt, thus Foreman lost to Briggs. In reality, he won handedly.

 

In my view Foreman basically vacated his claim when he stopped fighting the best contenders out there. He was robbed too against Briggs.

 

No, I think he's going to be remembered as he is here, the undeserving footnote recipient of a gift decision in George's last match. Far down the road, his prominence will be comparable to Marvin Hart's.

 

Technically, if ANYONE should have been declared the lineal HW champion it was Axl Schulz, who was robbed against Foreman. Foreman refused a rematch, fought Savarese and Grimsley (I forget the order), and evidentially the suits, the powers that be, had enough of Foreman's cherry picking and free agent status, and when Briggs went the distance---they gave it to him---thus eliminating Foreman completely from contention, as he been stripped of his alphabet titles and now his linear claim.

Still, George was HUGE, and I still wish that in 1999 Holmes-Foreman would have came off.

*If we consider Schulz lineal HW champion, then basically the title went back to the man Foreman won it from in Michael Moorer; Schulz 'won' the IBF title from Botha after 'winning' the lineal title from Foreman, and then lost via SD to Michael Moorer, who would then lose to Evander Holyfield.

 

Arguably the worst lineal champ in heavyweight history.

 

Utter Bull****.

 

In my view Dempsey basically vacated his claim(And Willard before that) when he stopped fighting the best contenders out there.

 

Foreman led Moorer a merry dance in trying to get a rematch too. Strung him along for ages then kept breaking it off. Arum didn't help either.

Schulz didn't beat Botha, Botha outboxed him and then the fight was changed to an NC when Botha oddly tested positive for steroids.

So it's still Schulz, but maybe Botha has a partial claim to be linear champ

I think HomicideHenry is right. Foreman openly admitted to skipping on the best opponents, and given the chance to finally get this 48-year-old out of the mix I think the boxing commission took it. It was a bogus decision but then so was the Schulz one.

As for Briggs, too harsh Duodenum. I think the fight with Lewis and the stunning finale to Liakhovich will be remembered just as much with Briggs as the dodgy Foreman victory.

 

Good thing Moorer beat them both then Hmmm does this all make Moorer an underrated HW?