What, and then fight the guy who holds one of their belts when they are stripped so the bodies can make more money outta' sanctioning fees? Again, Mayweather Vs Senchenko is not a viable contest.
I wouldn't give the crown to anyone. There are rules -or should be rules- to decide who is king. I devised my own and at times, they force recognition of someone who clearly isn't the best in the world. Briggs has the win over Foreman. Foreman had been stripped by the WBA and IBF before the Briggs fight though no one beat him before Briggs. I pay no attention to their decisions because 3/4 of the time, their decisions defy reason and are purely self-serving or poor attemps by control freaks to get their titlists' "loyalty" to a belt that they had to pay big money for though they keep it only as long as they don't lose it in the ring or due to the sanctioning body's whim (and then the next titlist has to pay big money for it all over again -a racket!). Did the WBA and IBF strip Foreman of his win over Moorer -who has the win over Holyfield who has the win over Bowe who has the win over Holyfield who has the win over Douglas who has the win over Tyson who has the win over Spinks who has the win over Holmes? Holyfield couldn't possibly be the true champion. He lost his title to Moorer. He became a titlist of a little clique called the WBA, but he did not become the heavyweight king based on his defeat of Tyson. That WBA belt isn't convincing. That WBA belt was won by Tyson after he fought a petrified Seldon for the vacant title. That title was the one stripped from Foreman -who had not been beaten before Briggs.
Also, under your own criteria Lufcrazy you would (I imagine) see Foreman as the no.1 still, as I can't see Briggs winning that match to be honest.
By the way, the only reason why the "lineal" champion must often fight less than the best is because of ....surprise! ....The sanctioning bodies! They want to keep their cash cows in line and that is why they have their own rankings and insist that their titlist face whom they say they have to face.
Briggs lost the hell out of the match, but he got the decision. However, if we start overruling judges we will have to revise ALOT of boxing history. Right now, Dawson is the successor to Hopkins. The WBC's overruling is a joke. If the California commission overrules it -that's a different story.
the division was probably as recognised as say the wbo was in the late eighties early ninties i would think. so yes it was recognised and seeing as they were the first chapions of the weight they should be recognised in the history books
Anyone thinking george was the top hw going into that fight is delusional. Here's how I see that particular era: Holyfield wins close fight over moorer before retiring. Foreman takes top spot by knocking out michael. Foreman then fades into obscurity whilst bowe beats hide, holyfield and gonzalez to rise to the top. Whilst bowe is being battered by the mentally unstable golota tyson is destroying bruno and seldon to take top spot. Tyson and holyfield face off any and holy emerges victorious, by the time there's been rematch victories over tyson and moorer the lineal belt is a distant memory. Lewis unifies every title claim in 99 and there isn't any dispute by anyone as to who the champ is.
Again, there is no need to pay any attention to the trinkets. It just makes more sense to say that Lewis became the true successor in 1997. He did so the moment he corrected an unfortunate necessity in the HW succession, which was the reign of Briggs. Lewis did us all a favor and saw to it that Brigg's reign was kept to a mere 4 months. "Title claims"? In '99, Lewis took those titles because he beat Evander Holyfield -a former king who by then was only a pretender to the Lewis throne. In a rational world, 1999 Holyfield would have been a top contender fighting his way back to his old throne -he defeated two former kings in Moorer and Tyson to get there -but Lewis was the man to beat and everyone knew it. See how neat it can be without the corrupt organizations mucking things up? ... Although I think you are very wrong in the weight you give to those tin-belts and thus accepting the corruption behind them, I think it is a good and interesting move to call what you are looking at as the premiere fighter in the division that year. "Premiere" leaves the question of titlists and lineages out of it. It's a different question. There were and still should be fighters who were better than the champion in their division. They were top contenders in divisions -but they weren't pimping 5 silly-ass belts and pretending that they were something they were not. Inferior or lucky champions were toppled from their throne in short order because one of those top contenders got them. Those top contenders weren't forbidden from fighting them because of the whims of the WBS. They had to beat THE world champion to become THE world champion -not one of 4 or 5 of them to become A world champion!
No I'm sorry, accepting a bad decision by the judges in a fight between a nobody and a 50 year old man is just as bad as anything these trinkets do. you refer to lewis as "the man to beat" at no point was that man shannon the cannon briggs. i'll tell you what it is, it's a deus ex machina "too much hassle judging fights era's and championship worth for myself, I'll leave it to them and try to keep it simple" spinks didn't deserve the rematch against larry so seeing him as champ when tyson is smashing his way through the division is dleusional. Sullivan went inactive for 4 years, 4 years seeing him as champ during this time is crazy imo. Max Schmelling handled sharkey in their rematch, to any observer he's the superior man in the ring, but 3 men disagree and so we all change our mind about who the best hw is? I call insanity. For me it's a simple question, "what is a champion?": for you it's a man who beat a man who beat a man who beat a man who once was champion; for me it's the man who's beating better opponents ion a better fashion than anybody else out there.
lufc-crazy :good I love Leeds United. People can preach lineal champ all they want but if that means levinsky, rosenbloom and lesnevic where the best out there for 600 years then I'm not that into it. certainly not into it if people think a fight between george and shannon was more of a championship fight than mike vs vander. even less if those people think george beat shannon yet agree to recognise shannon as the champ. I used to be one of these ":nono fighter a doesn't hold the lineal belt" type of guys but the more ?I learn about boxing, the more I learn it's bull**** and a concept that doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.
I don't like bad decisions anymore than anyone else, but to overrule them because you feel they were bad decisions and therefore revise history is worse than insanity. It invites chaos. That is not to say that something shouldn't be set up that will control for idiotic decisions, an ad hoc appeal board for example. ...By the way, guess whose very often appointing those idiotic judges responsible for so many bad decisions that we complain about..... oooops! The sanctioning bodies! Are you seeing a pattern here yet, my friend? Additionally, are you prepared to write Dave Tiberi into your middleweight lineage? Get to it, man. You're gonna be rewriting lineages for the next 18 weeks once you dig into it. (I know! I did!)
Why have you missed out Foreman getting a gift decision against Schulz and Schulz losing to Moorer? Tyson looked like a bad ass against Seldon and Bruno, but neither were close to being the best with all due respect to them
Jackson and toney were neck and neck. In 92 when toney got beat by tiberi I think jackson (who scored a crushing ko that month) became the top mw in the world and there he stayed for a year until he lost to g man whilst jones dominated hopkins. As for lineage; i'm writing my own interpretations of each divisions top fighter at any given time i'm up to the lw division. For me, whether the title is ring, lineal, wbo, wba, wbc, ibf, ibo etc it matters not. The man makes the belt and not the other way round.