Timeline of the premiere LWW in the world.

Yes he too faded, that's where bowe comes in with his crushing knockouts over hide and holyfield.

I think holy beat moorer, but he then retired due to heart problems. At the point foreman knocked out moorer I think he was the best and had proven so. He then faded into obscurity (along with moorer if it makes you feel better) which is where my earlier mention of bowe comes in. Big daddy was then getting battered by golota whilst tyson battered bruno. Holy then battered tyson before getting controlled by lewis 2 years later.

For the record, I can judge who the best is by any criteria I want. If you like to keep it simple that's fine. If your happy to recognise based on linearity that's also fine.

I don't mind putting more thought into it.

Consider that the man who is the best can also be the holder of the lineal (or any other) belt.

I don't see how judging the merit of each claimant is overly complex but each to their own :good

 

Unless you completely agree that foreman deserved every victory post mm until he fought briggs and you then feel that shannon deserved the victory over george, I see no way you can recognise the him as the best.

Linearity relies upon the official decision always being correct in the eyes of the beholder as well as relying on the will of the champion to fight the best out there.

Another problem is two lineages form whenever a champ retires and comes back.

It has it's merits but I don't think it paints a true picture.

After watching casamayor vs santa cruz I have no idea how anyone can call him the best lw in the world.

 

In the big picture it means nothing, but this is a subjective sport and the beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

If i'm giving my opinion on the greatness off a fighter it goes hand in with my opinion of that fighter's fights.

Are you genuinely saying that greb was never the premiere lhw out there? Or that burley was never the premiere mw? Or that bivins was never the premiere hw?

If you are saying that then I think we're looking at the sport completely differently.

 

He has a cracking legacy to those who bother to look, but your right he's not very high profile. In the nws era it seems it was hard to get a title shot legitimately.

 

Is that massively unfair to battling levinsky, tony zale and joe louis?

All them held the lineal title whilst the above were on their best runs. However whilst battling held the lineal title, the american lhw title passed from greb to tunney.

Whilst zale held the lineal title burley got his hands on the coloured title.

Whilst louis was in the army with his lineal title, bivins held the duration title.

So during these periods which title was worth more? The one held by the best in the division or the one held by someone not the best?

Once lesnevich won his lhw title he fought bivins at 176 pounds and lost handily, what kind of champion do you rate him as? He held the lineal title for 505 years whilst guys like bivins, marshal, moore and charles were all proving who the best really was.

The alphabet era today isn't a whole lot better than 100 years ago during the nws era when 5 guys per division had a title claim.

Either way you proved my point: those guys I listed were premiere in their division without holding the lineal belt and that's not an anomaly, it's happened a lot the more I look into history.

 

What i'm implying is that for 4 years louis isn't in the question of who the best was; he effectively retired his belt and went in the army. He even recognised bivins as the champ himself by handing him the belt after bivins beat tammy.

For 4 year jimmy beat every worth hw whilst joe beat none.

It isn't really debatable who the better hw is during louis's absence surely?

Note that i'm not saying jimmy would have beaten louis at any point during this 4 years, i'm saying by virtue of him being active whilst joe wasn't I regard him as a better hw during these 3.5 years.