Shannon Briggs - The Champion

If you don’t include the context of the Holyfield fight. We know what happened when Holyfield had the rematch at 100%.

 

Lets break down all the champs during Foremans reign. People criticizing Georges SOS forget how much a mess the title picture during his 90s reign was.

The IBF mandatory was Schulz who got 2 more title shots in a row and lost them both. At some point its got to be on Schulz. Schulz lost to Moorer who George beat so it stopped mattering because after that the belt Foreman had been stripped of was held by someone he'd knocked out. And Moorer would keep that IBF belt until 2 weeks before Foreman v Briggs.

Foremans WBA belt was taken by Bruce Seldon for beating Tony Tucker. This is considered one of the weakest alphabelt belt of the 20th century then won by Tyson when he hadn't fought anyone elite in 5 years then won by Holyfield. While Holyfield had beaten George in 1991 he'd suffered 3 losses in between and was not really a factor until 1997 when he avenged the Moorer loss. Holyfield v Tyson I should not have been a title fight.


Now the last one the WBC was held by Oliver McCall after he upset Lennox which he lost to Bruno who Bruno lost to Tyson in his final fight. Lennox only regained his belt in early 1997 and won it by rematching McCall after Tyson had been stripped. If George had gotten through Briggs and didn't retire he'd have fought Lennox.

While Foreman didn't hold the belts for much of his reign the 3 champs those orgs decided on were not "the real champ" until the very end of Georges 3 year reign. Tyson was only viewed as the guy because he is Tyson and Holyfield was only viewed as the guy because he beat Tyson which he didn't do until late 1996.

While the 80s is remembered as the era that the best didn't fight anyone the 90s was not much better. Holyfield fought the other 5 HWs of the 90s(Lennox,Bowe, Moorer, Foreman, Tyson), Bowe only fought Holyfield. The rest of the group including Foreman fought 2. As did all of Foremans title opponents except Grimsley. Golota and Botha fought more but came away with no official wins against that group.

Another thing here is Savarese was an undefeated North American champ and the regional titles have always been a pipeline for title shots. Giving guys like Savarese title shots has always been normal. The real dip is with Grimsley and Briggs. Grimsley was an undefeated 6 ft 6 fighter with a 90% KO rates. Briggs didn't have an undefeated record or any of these accolades but after the fact he was an alphabet champ who made the Ring top 10 3 times. Hes got over 50 Knockouts and is technically a 2 time HW champion. What makes Briggs belt more questionable than Leon Spinks or Buster Douglas?

 

What this boils down to is those of us who value the physical belts, & those of us who value the lineage as it passes from man to man. End thread for me.

 

Bowe was almost always better than the official belt holders in this era but there was also the whole political issue of him being the WBO standard bearer. And then the Golota fights killed any claim he had to being the "real champ". But before then he had as good a claim as anyone else it wasn't a strong one but neither was anyone elses.

Given Bowe didn't fight none of the other top guys except Holyfield its hard to blame any individual champ for not fighting him.

 

They didn't win belts from a guy who had been ducking everyone in the top 10 3 years straight

Also Foreman and Moorer are not top 5 90s heavyweights

 

This only because how the public viewed Tyson and when Holyfield beat him how they viewed Holyfield by extension. Not the actual merits. Neither Tyson or Holyfield were the real champ the public just perceived them this way because culture. The best alphabet champ was Moorer and Bowe was the 2nd best belt holder until he lost to Golota.

Moorer was the best alphabet champ for most of Georges reign and Foreman beat him. As long as this remained true Foremans claim couldn't be erased by weak SOS because everything Moorer did just solidified Georges claim. No one had a credible claim to being the real champ until the last months of his reign the WBA and WBC belts were being passed around. The best champ Foreman hadn't beaten was Bowe before Golota and you can't accuse Foreman of not fighting anyone then crown Bowe.

Whatever you want to say about Foremans SOS or 18 month break there was no clear rival claimant he should have been fighting during his reign. His belts were stripped and given to Moorer and Bruce Seldon not Lennox Lewis and Riddick Bowe.

 

When someone fought Ali, Frazier, Norton, Jimmy Young and Lyle they get lifetime immunity from being called a duck.

None of Georges peers except Lewis and Holyfield fought more of the 90s elite. Lennox didn't do this until after Foreman retired and Holyfield was 1-3 against Moorer and Bowe. Moorer was KOd by Foreman. You keep focusing on what Foreman did what did everyone else do to supplant him? And until 1997 when Lennox was beating Golota and Holyfield was beating Moorer the answer is nothing. And once a credible threat emerged in Lewis Foreman was open to fighting him.

3 years isn't enough time for a lineal champ to lose recognition if they fight no one and don't stay retired. Look at history. Sullivan, Jeffries, Jack Johnson, Willard, Dempsey, Tyson Fury. Vitali took 4 years and change to be replaced and that was a unique situation where he was replaced by his brother he'd never fight.

 

He should have defended against Bowe or Holyfield or Lewis. Failing that guys ranked in the top 10 like McCall

 

Foreman didn't fight Lewis and there's no proof he ever would have. Holyfield beating Tyson in 1996 clearly supplanted Foreman giving Foreman's terrible opposition. In 1997 Lewis beat McCall, Akinwande, and Golota while Foreman beat Lou Savarese
By the 1990s 3 years was plenty of time to lose recognition as champ. Long periods of ducking were less acceptable along with drawing the color line.

Plenty of guys fought more 90s top heavyweights than Foreman who faced 2 (Holyfield, Moorer)

 

Left out Foreman openly ducking Tucker. Otherwise, Tucker would've been lineal champion.

 

He shouldn't have gotten that title shot and Tyson won that belt for beating Bruce Seldon. Tyson got his title shot for beating Buster Mathis Jr who Foreman also gave Savarese the title shot for beating. The WBA stripped Foreman before he even fought Schulz and had Seldon and Tucker fight for his belt. That was not a credible title. If you think Foreman should have been stripped for not fightng for 18 months then fighting Grimsley thats not the WBA did.

If 3 years is enough its never happened at HW. And if it ever happens it'll be a RJJ situation where its clear someone else is the "real champ". Thats what REALLY matters for lineal not the SOS. Simple inactivity is not enough.

1997 was the final year of Foremans reign. Its possible he was fighting these giant sluggers(which was a departure from earlier fights except Cooney) to prepare for Lewis.

Lou Savarese was the USBA champ. That NABF, EBU and Commonwealth have always been pipelines for title shots. During the last decades of American domination at HW being North American champ was a big deal. Holmes gave multiple north american champs like Savarese shots. Ali fought some Commonwealth champs. The least defendable opponent here is Briggs who wasn't undefeated and had no silverware. But he turned out to be the best one so who cares?

I think the thing with Savarese, Grimsley and Briggs people are overlooking is how big and powerful they were. Foreman was fighting giants who could hit really hard at 47.

 

Well to replace the old champ you need to have a new one who everyone knows is the best but doesn't have the belt. Without that whats the point? Part of lineal is making it so champs can not be removed for reasons other than losing or retirement. To get around that the case needs to be overwhelming the whole point of a lineal title is to avoid this from happening.

That was an unusual situation because Tyson had an "aura" and the biting of the ear. That was perhaps the most memorable fight in American history if it hadn't been for a title people would have misremembered it being for one anyway. Normally the average person doesn't know who the champ is. In the 80s and 90s the average person thought Tyson and the ear guy were champ.

But the point is Tyson and Holyfield did not have claims to be champ. Whatever demand there would have been for a Holyfield-Foreman rematch was erased from the losses to Moorer and Bowe. If not for Holyfields title shots plus subscription Holyfield wouldn't have gotten most of his title shots. Objectively Holyfield is the HW whose gotten the best treatment by sanctioning bodies others and losses set his career back the least. John Ruiz is the only other guy whose close.

 

Weirdly Holyfield got treated even better. Tyson got shots at titles he didn't deserve against easy opponents but he was winning those fights. Once he actually lost it took years to rebound. Holyfield could tank multiple losses and be rewarded with a title shot. There are like 100 HWs who could have been champions who weren't with Holyfields oppurtunities(or John Ruizs).