ESPN Classic top 10 heavyweights

Foreman was the lineal champion when he fought Briggs.he took the title off of Michael Moorer.Frazier was not the champion when he fought Quarry in 1969 it's quite simple.
I'm not concerned where you rate Frazier or Foreman.
I'm only concerned with the truth. I'm not responsible for quotes anyone may have made in a book.

 

What ring announcers say is not gospel.Who had Mathis beaten to be considered for a match to decide who was champion of the world ?
Who is the author?

 

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Larry Holmes
4. Lennox Lewis
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Wladimir Klitscko
7. George Foreman
8. Evander Holyfield
9. Mike Tyson
10. Joe Frazier

Honorable mentions: Sonny Liston, Jack Johnson, Ezzard Charles, Rid**** Bowe, Floyd Patterson.

 

No. The way this works is as follows:

The worlds hwt championship is considered the most important prize in all of sport. As such it needs to be treated as the most valuable prize. You win it by beating the true champion and you lose it in the ring. That fighter who beats the true champion is the new worlds hwt champion.

The title cannot be stripped. It is lost in the ring or upon the retirement of the champion. The new champion is crowned once one fighter proves his superiority. Usually in a match made between the no 1 and No 2 contenders.

Tunney retired. The two top hwts then fought to decide the new champion. Schmeling won and so the lineage continues.

 

I disagree with this. By that logic if a champion chooses not to retire but also refuses to meet his mandatory challengers, then he can hang around for years cherry picking opponents while calling himself "the champ." I never saw a written rule anywhere in boxing that backs this lineage policy. I suspect it was an unwritten rule and one that was primarily designed long ago to protect white men from relinquishing the title to black men.

 

Then do you accept that Frazier, by his refusal to face a rated challenger for two solid years disqualified himself from recognition as champion for that period? If so who was the champion in his place?

 

Lineage only exists under the realm of fantasy. You either are or are not the best in your division as proven by you either beating or not beating the best available contenders.

 

That's the problem. You have two choices....

You can use knowledge of boxing history to determine the true hwt champion. There are no written rules concerning this idea although it's well written about. It's the historical championship handed down from Sullivan. RING actually tries to use this concept in part but they do allow for stripping of the title under certain guidelines.

Or

Just accept that we have 4-5 boxing commissions that on a whim will strip a title and give it to someone else. The most prized trophy treated as if it were worthless. Accept on any given time period we could have 2, 3, 4 perhaps 5 hwt champions. To me THIS scenario is crazy and unacceptable.

The historical championship is not a perfect concept but in my mind it's the only way to keep the titles as they were intended.

 

"Best" has nothing to do with the true championship. It's based on the RIGHTFUL fighter being considered the worlds hwt champion. That may or may not be the best fighter in the division at any particular time. RIGHTFUL is the most important phrase here.