Who Do YOU Recognize as the Champs between Foreman-Moorer and Holyfield-Lewis?

Bowe or Holyfield were the most established and what was considered the best. Lewis was still finding his way with his ko loss to Mcall and struggle with Mercer.
Bruno, Botha, Seldon were all just Don King manufactured champions at that stage with Bruno or Moorer (who eventually lifted the IBF belt back), probably being the best of the belt holders.

David Tua, and Ike Ibeabuchi were emerging as the most promising prospects.
I never thought too much of Rahman, Briggs, Izon, Savarese or Nicholson when they were trying to make their marks.

 

For me it was big george he beat the man who beat the man who beat the man who beat pre jail tyson

 

I'd consider it to be vacant. Tyson lost decisively to Holyfield and lost his license with it. Bowe got thrashed and retired by Polish Andrew Golota. Lennox Lewis, in turn, destroyed Golota and avenged his loss to McCall. Holyfield avenged his loss to Moorer and of course knocked out Tyson. Of all heavyweights, Lewis and Holyfield had the best resumes between 1994 and 1999, but neither stuck out and i'd say the title was vacant until they squared off.

 

Not to mention he should've definitely lost the title to Schulz, making him the first German champion in 60 years of boxing..

 

I actually thought Tua was the best at that time. When he was fighting under and around 230, he looked pretty devastating. He could be outboxed, but he seemed to always catch up to his opponent in the later rounds, and I didnt think the older guys could handle his pace over 12 rounds. He had beaten solid young fighters, Izon, Rahman, Ibebuchi, Maskaev, Sullivan, Nicholson.
I knew Bowe was shot, Holy was just so dam inconsistent and looked terrible against a shot Bowe. Lewis really didnt impress me until after his fight with Mercer, so I wasnt sure he was ready as he still seemed to be finding himself with Steward.

 

tua did not beat ike, and back then lewis and evander would of boxed tua's head off.

 

That's so silly and disrespectful to Holyfield.

 

It goes like this.

Foreman-Tyson-Holyfield-Lewis.

 

I recognize Foreman as the champ, then Briggs, then Lewis. Foreman never lost his title until the Briggs fight because he didn't lose a fight, nor did he ever retire.

If boxing were a little more organized, that is, if there were only one champion per division and no Don King manufactured titleholders, you could make a great case for stripping Foreman of his title for not fighting a leading contender. But since boxing can't seem to decide who the leading contenders really are, I'll cling to the perhaps antiquated notion of "lineal champion".

As far as who was the BEST heavyweight during that time, I'd have to go with Tyson-Holyfield-Lewis in that order. I don't think that Foreman has been the best heavyweight in the world since 1974. He wasn't in 1994-95 any more than Leon Spinks was in 1978 or lineal champion Michael Spinks was from 1986 to June 88.

 

Why? Let's not forgot he lost to Bowe in the rubber match and looked less than stellar on a few occasions as well - for instance against Cyzc, or his close fight with Mercer.

 

Foreman was the rightful champ.

We cant have it both ways, I mean if we going to "Strip" Foreman of being champ, we might as well strip Sullivan, Corbett, Dempsey, Willard, Johnson, Patterson, and Braddock for not faceing the best.

 

In my opinion: Moorer - Foreman - Briggs - Lewis.