Does winning the title give a huge boost to fighter's resume in your opinion? Or QUALITY of his resume (aminly wins, of course) should be the main factor where to rank a fighter? For me it's clearly the lattest. I can't imagine how anybody in his wildest dreams can rank Shannon Briggs over, let's say, Ron Lyle... Or Jerry Quarry... Or Jimmy Bivins... Yes, Briggs held the title briefly, but his 3 best wins are: - a gift decision against 49-years-old George Foreman - a win over 44-years-old Ray Mercer (who admittedly took a dive) - a last-second KO over Siarhei Liakhovich - his only REAL win over top 30 fighter. Mercer wasn't anywhere near top 30 when Briggs fought him, and Foreman was blatantly robbed by the judges And lets compare Briggs' resume to Ron Lyle's one, for example: - Ernie Shavers - Oscar Bonavena - Joe Bugner - Jimmy Ellis - Gregorio Peralta - Buster Mathis - Larry Middleton - Vincent Rondon Even his wins over guys like Kirkman, Garcia, Ward and LeDoux would top almost ANY win in Briggs' resume. Hell, Jack O'Halloran, Jurgen Blin, Manuel Ramos, Kevin Isaac, Luis Faustino Pires and some others would EASILY make top 5 in Briggs' resume. So, how can anyone rank Briggs over Lyle if Lyle's resume is millions times better?
I would rank all three higher. Especially Bivins. I don't think winning the title is really that important, especially when you won it via robbery vs a 47 year old.
Here are the power punchers/contenders/alphabet champions i rank ahead of Briggs (in no order): Ron Lyle Earnie Shavers David Tua Tommy Morrison Ike Ibeaubuchi Razor Ruddock Corrie Sanders
I'd take many punchers over Briggs. Lyle has decent resume that destroys everything that Briggs ever accomplished.
I do think Briggs, had he developed his defense more, could have been really good. He clearly had a lot of power and was quite tough. But he lacked smarts, his endurance was questionable and his defense was poor. For a talented guy like him, he should have had a much better resume. Remember he emerged after 1995. The heavweight division from 95-99 was significantly weaker than 1990-94 IMO. There was no excuse for Briggs not to be a top 4 heavyweight from 95-99. Yet he is clearly behind Lewis, Holyfield, Foreman (who did beat him), Tua, Ike etc. This is only counting 95-99 accomplishments. Still i do not want to be too harsh. He was certainly a good fighter and made some good showings past his prime, which only shows how good he could have been with better defense and endurance.
Actually, I disagree that he had a lot of power. I don't think he hit that hard. He threw a lot of punches and had good hand speed, hence his record of early stoppages over questionable opposition. This content is protected I think Steve Holdsworth is one of the few people I've seen who shares my point of view. 1:25 "I've always questioned Briggs' ability to land a big punch...I do wonder about the power" 1:43 "As I say you've got to wonder about the power" 1:57 "He's not a banger but he's very quick" I don't rate him very highly at all.
You make a good point. I think his power may be slightly overrated due to those quick hands. But my goodness, those were some seriously quick hands. As i said, an athletic guy like that should have had a much better career.
