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

I think it should be illegal for a fighter to win the world title unless he is the best and ranked in the pound for pound top five.

Unless he meets these criteria he should stand there and take his beating like a man

 

Silly. Lineal title has nothing to do with the boxing commissions. George beat Moore. He then became the true champion. That's it. He can't be stripped of that title. He lost to Briggs and Briggs became the new champion. That's it. Lewis then beat Briggs. Lewis was then the new champion. That's it.

 

No, they only have to do with the belts which George lifted off of Moorer which is why it was called a "championship" in the first place. You can't credit a guy with becoming champion upon seizing a belt, then later turn around and say the belts meant nothing when it no longer suits a particular argument.

yes he did.

No it isn't.

Oh but he was.

Nice beginning and ending to the story, only you left out the middle.

 

The Lineal Title actually became relevant due to the politics and corruption of the sanctioning bodies. Stripping titlists and bias rankings gave the lineal title authenticity, due to it only changing hands in the ring. Sure, on occasion the titlist may not have been the best at that point in time, however it is the only lineage that travels directly back to the times of one title. Even at various points in the one title era, the champion has not been the around

 

Briggs had no prestige after beating Foreman. He was laughing stock for having to rob a semi retired 50 year old man.

He came out first against Lewis because everyone considered Lewis above Briggs.

Briggs had the lineage but it wasn't until Lewis beat Holy we saw a true HW champ.

 

Just to qualify what I mean.

In terms of fights to be made then people wanted holy-lewis-tyson facing each other. No one gave a **** about Briggs.

And when Briggs lost to Lewis the mainstream didn't suddenly accept Lewis as the undisputed champion.

 

The belts have nothing to do with the lineal title. The belts are a creation of corrupt boxing commissions. The lineal title is the historic title that can logically be traced back to Sullivan. No such thing as stripping of the lineal title. Lewis did not win the title from Holy. He won it after beating Briggs because he beat Foreman who beat Moore who beat Holy who beat Douglas who beat Tyson. Etc.

 

Who the hell rated Briggs enough to say he was one of Lewis' best wins?

Briggs was not seen as a threat going into the fight with Lewis having been stopped by Wilson and winning a controversial decision over Foreman and after the fight all he proved was his chin wasn't as bad as some expected.

Yes he was highly touted for a time but the loss to Wilson showed he was never a top level contender, it's probably why Foreman chose him as an opponent. He was kind of like a Corrie Sanders, fast, powerful and dangerous early on but possessed a weak chin.

 

I don't think it was one of Lewis best wins. Briggs IMO was not much of a fighter. However he won the title by getting that decision win like it or not.

 

Yes he won the lineal title but he wasn't recognised as undisputed champ until he beat holyfield.

 

He was talking about Briggs beating Foreman by decision to win the title not Lewis beating Briggs as Lewis KO'ed Briggs.

 

If a linear champ retires he vacates the title. Jeffries, Louis, and Ali (twice) were no longer World Champions when they fought Johnson, Charles, Frazier, and Holmes, respectively.

I agree that Foreman was terrible champion in his second reign. But he fought every year and kept winning until Briggs (a horrible decision, BTW) "beat" him.

Perhaps Willard's, Dempsey's, and Louis' reigns should be truncated due to their several years of inactivity while champions. Perhaps Frazier should be retroactively stripped based on his lack of activity against quality fighters between March 1971 and January 1973. (No, I don't truly believe any should be stripped. I'm just making an argument.)

If the organizations conducted their business in an honest and logical manner I would be more inclined to recognize their activities. But they've buffooned themselves out of me taking them seriously.

Holyfield & Tyson were "just" contenders during Foreman's reign. They were the best in the world, but so was Sonny Liston in the 3-4 years before he got his shot against Patterson.

 

The concept of a true lineal champ had been eroding for many years before this whole Foreman-Briggs issue came up. In the late seventies one Muhammad Ali wanted an easy defense, got pummeled by Leon Spinks, who then dodged Ken Norton. The title was split. Larry Holmes never had any interest in unifying, which in my eyes has always soured his image with me a bit, though I believe he was best in the world at the time.

Mike Tyson, for all his difficult, hard-to-like behaviors, unified the title. And that was great!

And though I love George Foreman, he's to blame for letting it split up again, and as others have said, his claim as lineal champ was very dubious at the time he fought Briggs. His defenses were against journeyman, some of whom got the best of him. Briggs got a lucky shot, a lucky win, and the real champ, a guy by the name of Lennox Lewis, got things back on track a bit when he beat the hell out of Briggs a short time later.

 

In Briggs case the belts meant more than the linear title because they were held be superior fighters than Foreman. Mike Tyson, Lennox Lewis and Holyfield were the top 3 guys. Everyone knows it. Sorry, but it's not 1940 and the era of one champion per division where one dude can sit on the title and worthy contenders wait for years or never get title shots. Like it or not World Boxing Organizations can add a sort of legitimacy. In this case, they stripped Foreman of a title he held - recognized by one of the World organziations . Ask 100 casual fans if Shannon Briggs was ever heavyweight champion. Maybe 2 or 3 will say yes.

 

Sorry. You cannot strip the true championship.

Spinks was stripped of one of his legitimate paper title and it was then handed to Norton. That did not change the fact that Spinks was the true champion. Norton never was hwt champion of the world.

To be fair Holmes became champ at a time where the paper titles were as separated as I have ever seen them. Each had their own champion and seemed content to have it that way. None of this changes the fact that Holmes was the legit champion. He accomplished this by beating Norton who had beaten Young to then be the no 1 challenger. And then Holmes beat the returning former championAli to cement his claim as lineal champion.