ESPN Classic top 10 heavyweights

So, can "rightful" be determined by the color line and managerial hijinks?

 

Boxing history does not live in a vacuum. It exists in a world that on any given period will be more or less racist than another. It's part of the history whether we like it or not.

 

So, lineal is an award for the best figure in boxing history rather than the best boxer.

I understand.

Honestly, boxing interests me more than what non-participants write about it, so again, I will dismiss the lineal smoke and mirrors.

 

No. It's the historical champion. The only true champion.

 

Lineage to most people's understanding has to do with having a direct connection to a predecessor tracing all the way back to the beginning.. With all that has happened over the past 100+ years with men retiring, being stripped, the sport changing its rules and being governed by multiple organizations, etc, how can such a concept even exist? Wladimir Klitscko has no connection to Sullivan whatsoever and the same holds true for every current champion of every division to their original ancestor champion. The concept of being the best in a division through beating the best and the willingness to continue to do so is far more real.. Miguel Cotto beat Sergio Martinez.. Do you consider HIM to be the true champion at middleweight over Golovkin?

 

It was originally recorded as a 5th round TKO (for many years actually). The bell for the 5th round had sounded and then Ellis' corner indicated he was not going to continue... whatever, who gives a shlt? Frazier beat him easily, twice.

Any resume can be picked apart. If you are looking for something negative, you can find it anywhere.

Frazier beat Bonavena twice, the first fight was close and Frazier went down twice. He also dropped and won a clear decision over Joe Bugner. Frazier stopped Eddie Machen (who had recently schooled Jerry Quarry), Jerry Quarry (twice), Doug Jones, George Chuvalo (only Frazier and Foreman stopped Chuvalo), Buster Mathis, Manuel Ramos, Jimmy Ellis (twice), Bob Foster, and others in brutal fashion. He beat a version of Ali who would have defeated most HWs ever. That's enough to stake his claim as one of the best ever.

If we are going to just add up Lineal HW World Title fights that were won and call that guy the best... I guess nobody bets Joe Louis! It's not about how many world title fights you won though, it's about much more than that. Eventually W. Klitschko will have more HW World Title wins than Louis... but you probably will only count a few of those wins.

So again, Frazier went 10-2 (8KOs) in HW World Title fights. I don't give a shlt when he beat Ellis (1970) or even Ali (1971). These guys that have World Champion written on their belts today get to be called champion and their title fights count... even if they are not the "true" champion in their division. The fact that Frazier beat Ellis and eventually Ali makes what he did prior to facing them all come together. Had he lost to Ellis... now that's a different story.

So, back to the Klitschko's... how many of their fights do you consider world title fights? How about Lennox Lewis? Mike Tyson? Others?

Tyson wasn't the Lineal HW Champ until he beat M. Spinks in 1988 (which means Floyd Patterson is still the youngest "Lineal" HW Champ ever, but not the youngest unified champ). Unified does not = undisputed. At this point he had already gone 7-0 (5) in world title fights and had unified the WBA, WBC, IBF belts. He would never win the "Lineal" HW title again. Do you consider his HW world title record 3-2 (3) with wins coming vs. M. Spinks, Frank Bruno, and Carl Williams, with losses to Douglas and Lewis?

Anyway, you can add it up however you want. The point is you need to look at a fighters entire career and put most of the emphasis on his prime.

 

Can't be a direct connection. It's an historically traceable logical connection.

 

The point is that a poster said Frazier had a 6 year reign as champion and he didn't.

 

Gene Tunney is still the HW Champ!

 

He retired and left the title vacant and the two outstanding contenders fought for the title. That seems pretty reasonable to me.

I don't see why you are so distressed about it?
Where you rate Frazier or anyone else is up to you, I haven't even posted my rankings on this thread, so why I'm getting all these indignant Frazier fans up in arms is baffling.

Bottom line Frazier devalued his crown by refusing to face a ranked contender for two of his three years reign, and no amount of spin will change that.

 

I agree that there is a certain degree of importance to the lineage, but honestly I think it should be measured on a case to case basis. I don't believe there is one general blanket statement rule that should apply to every situation. For example by the time Tyson met Spinks in 1988 Tyson was in the ring with a guy who hadn't done anything to uphold the title in years. Ring magazine saw Spinks as the champion but most of boxing didn't which is precisely why Tyson was announced as the champion come fight night. A similar case can be made for George Foreman on the night he met shannon briggs. He won the title in 1994 then did nothing to preserve his claim for the next 3 years while men like Tyson, Holyfield, Bowe and Lewis were fighting over the belts that were taken from him.. Evander was the champion in 1997. Not Foreman. In Joe Frazier's case he STILL had the right to be called champ when he met Foreman despite not having faced a legit contender in a while because the rest of the heavyweight landscape at the time simply didn't warrant awarding that title to anyone else. He had already beaten Ali and Ellis. Jimmy hadn't done anything since while Ali was going back and forth with Norton who was still relatively unknown. Foreman was new to the scene.

 

Oh I don't care, I'm just having fun. you're one of the ones I like to debate with... value your opinion, yada yada, and all that

 

:thumbsup

 

Fun is what its supposed to be:good

 

It simply is NOT possible for a title recognised in New York, and 6 more Murican states to represent a WORLD anything. It is less than a drop in the ocean.