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

Louis defended against crappy opposition, does that diminish his status as linear champion? Of course not. Does that make the division a mess? Not at all.

Foreman was champion. He lost his championship in the ring to Shannon Briggs. A few months later Briggs lost the championship to Lewis. Lewis defended his championship six times, then lost it on a knockout to Hasim Rahman. Lewis regained the title from Rahman, becoming only the fifth heavyweight to win the world heavyweight title twice (the others being Patterson, Ali, Holyfield, and Foreman). Lewis defended his title twice more and retired. Only then is the division a mess.

The heavyweight lineage from Spinks to Lewis is clear and unbroken:

Spinks
Tyson
Douglas
Holyfield
Bowe
Holyfield
Moorer
Foreman
Briggs
Lewis
Rahman
Lewis

It's an open-and-shut case.

 

Agreed.

 

Is that all that matters to you guys, the actual history of what happened? Anyone can post that.
In reality did Foreman really deserve to retain his title against Axel Shultz? Shultz didnt win the fight against Botha, but Botha was stripped for some BS. Did Briggs really deserve the win over Foreman? C'mon, come up with something else, like fights and fighters you actually watched, not some paper lineage, that was really meaningless.
I picked Tua, because I felt he had a real good stretch of fights against almost all the top contenders. His fight with Ike was close, very close, but it could have gone either way. I would put that run up against anyones else at that time.
Holyfield practiced for Tyson using Gary Bell and Tua, and word was Holyfield was getting his butt kicked from pillar to post in the beginning, but slowly started figuring out Tua and handled him. Again Im not so sure any of the old timers could handle his pressure at that time.

 

I don't strictly follow the man who beats the man. What if the man starts facing inferior competition, while a ducked rival builds a better resume? What if Foreman didn't retire after defeating Moorer, but chose only to face tough man contest winners? Should he be considered the champion just because of lineage even though he is facing fighters in their professional debuts? I realize that is a silly example, but so is recognizing a fighter that continually faces inferior opposition as champion when a rival is building a better resume.

I need to score Holyfield and Moorer's first fight again, as I haven't watched it in years. When it happened, I had Holyfield winning. It was a close fight, and I recognized Foreman as champion when he defeated Moorer. I don't hold Foreman's refusal to give Moorer a rematch against him. I thought Foreman defeated Moorer convincingly. Foreman clearly won 3 rounds, if not 4, before dropping Moorer in the 10th. I don't care what the popular story is. If you have Moorer winning 9 rounds, you can't score boxing matches. Had Moorer been able to continue, Foreman was even or better on the cards(unofficially of course).

I do hold Foreman facing a low rated contender against him, and am even less appreciative of not giving Schulz a rematch after winning a questionable decision.

Riddick Bowe faced 3 undefeated fighters before his 3rd fight with Holyfield. Holyfield had a good win over Mercer going into that fight, not to mention the fact that I had him winning against Moorer. I recognized Bowe as champion after this fight.

Then Golota come along and thoroughly beats Bowe in consecutive losses to my new champion. Golota doesn't get the victory either time, and Bowe is apparently done.

Tyson defeats Bruno and Seldon, and becomes my recognized champ. Holyfield defeats him, and regains the title.

Lewis legitimizes his claim with a "draw" over Holyfield.

So to recap; we have Holyfield, Foreman, Bowe, Tyson, Holyfield, Lewis...
Moorer doesn't quite make it, because I had him losing to Holyfield. Foreman knocks Moorer out, and because of the news of Holyfield's failing health, I recognize Foreman's victory over Moorer as a successful title bid.

My opinion, my rules.

 

Well why didn't you make the thread title "WHO WAS THE BEST HW during 1994-1999?" not who was the CHAMP between Foreman-Moorer and Holyfield-Lewis? It's a misleading question.

Now to answer the question, I say the #1 HW was Foreman until 1995 after the Schulz debacle, then it was the winner of Bowe-Holyfield III, then Bowe retires after four fights, and then I gave it to the winner of Holyfield-Tyson, and then I ranked Lewis #1 after he defeated Holyfield (I contemplated whether or not to give Lewis the #1 spot after Golota but he still technically "lost" to Bowe so I can't really give him the spot after beating a guy who couldn't hold it together twice)

 

The question of the thread is: "Who Do YOU Recognize as the Champs between Foreman-Moorer and Holyfield-Lewis?" My answer is still Moorer - Foreman - Briggs - Lewis. :good

As far as who were the best heavyweights during that time, that's a different question, perhaps for a different thread.

 

Braddock did face Louis, but only after 2 years of not fighting, but in relly Schemling should have gotting the title shot, not Louis.

 

I knock Braddock on the 2 year break he took while champ.

If Foreman face Moore, beat Moore like he did, did not fight at ALL in 2 years, and than took on the loser of the Holyfiled Tyson fight, would you still consider Foreman champ?