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

Well, let's start by stating that Shannon Briggs wasn't the champion when he fought Lennox Lewis.

Michael Buffer's introduction will suffice .....

"From Brooklyn, New York, ladies and gentlemen, here is the challenger Shannon Briggs !

"From east London, England, presenting the reigning WBC heavyweight champion of the world Lennox Lewis !"

That says it all.
Compare it to how Spinks was introduced versus Tyson, where Spinks' status as a recognized rival champion was clearly heralded, in spite of Tyson being "officially" the "UNDISPUTED" champion.

A world champion who'd get introduced as a challenger without a hint of their "championship" being mentioned or refered to is NO world champion at all.

 

Foreman-Tyson-Holyfield-Lewis.

 

That's because the sanctioning body, who organise the whole introduction, don't give two shits about the linear champion, but want to promote their WBC champion.

If you think Briggs wasn't the linear champion because he should've lost to Foreman, then fair enough... but then you shouldn't consider Foreman champ at that point, either, because he should've lost to Schulz earlier.

 

I think by far, the most avoided guy around at the time was Lennox Lewis. I never heard too many guys or managers calling him out and signing a contract to climb in the ring with him. It always seemed to be reasons made to not fight the guy.

 

Obviously, the WBC dont care about the linear championship.

But nor then did Lewis or Briggs or their promoters or the TV company - all of whom have influence in how the fight is billed.

If Briggs himself , Lewis, HBO, the promoter, Briggs' camp, TV executive and pundits dont even bother to have Briggs introduced as the man-who-beat-the-man or even a hint of his alleged "championship" then he clearly isn't a champion, or he sure as hell isn't defending.

If he was defending a championship someone would see to it that it would be mentioned, not just "the challenger".
That's an open and shut case, as far as I'm concerned.

It's ok talking about "linear" but if the promoters and the alleged "champion's" own camp dont even bother to claim it, it means nothing. Just a figment of a fight buff's imagination.

Or maybe Briggs is still linear champ now, since he never actually defended it !

Also, I think promoters organize the introductions, not the sanctioning body.

Foreman de-valued the championship to liquidation point, that much I'm sure of. After the Schulz fight (and with his failure to give Schulz a rematch, nevermind take on the real top heavyweights) he just took a back seat to other heavyweights fighters, effectively resigned his position. But it's murky.
Briggs' status is more clear cut, IMO. For the reason I gave.

 

I've always thought that Lewis and his people pushed for the Briggs fight in order to solidify his (Lewis') claim as legitimate champ. I think that they knew that some people, hardcore knowledgeable boxing fans, recognized Briggs as the real champion and wanted his lineal title, even though the sanctioning bodies and probably the majority of fans couldn't give a rat's ass about it.

I've always wondered why Briggs and his management didn't promote the fact that Briggs was lineal heavyweight champion. I write it off to ignorance and poor management. Sometimes I think boxing insiders are so used to the way things are now with multiple champions, title strippings, rigged ratings, etc., that they have no sense of history and no clue how to make it a better sport. Briggs' management should have trumpeted very loudly that he was the man who beat the man and thus was the legitimate World Heavyweight Champion and would take on top contender Lennox Lewis in his first defense.

 

CF - Excellent point about the Spinks brothers. I was only using them to point out that sometimes the new or reigning champ isn't necessarily the recognized as the best in the division. Despite Foreman's clean KO of Moorer, I think any number of other then-current heavys could have beaten him on that day.

Great thread!

 

The lineal champion is not always the best man out there; simple logic should be enough to point this out.

Foreman held that distinction for a time, but then Briggs outpointed him (at least according to the judges present). Briggs may not have been the best heavyweight in the world-- in fact I'm sure of it-- but he was definitely champion. I think only Lewis or Holyfield could have claimed to be the top dog following Bowe's rapid fall from grace.

 

I didn't know Michael Buffer determined who was the world champion. He has a lot more power than I realized!

 

What about what Buffer said here at 1:44?

[yt]u3y2S6NQVeM&feature=related[/yt]

 

Foreman wasn't stripped for not fighting "the best." He was stripped for not fighting Tony Tucker, who was nowhere near being one of the best heavyweights at the time. How Tucker made it to mandatory contender status for a piece of Foreman's title I will never know, but George simply did not want to fight him. Foreman disrespected the sport of boxing and the heavyweight championship by not fighting his mandatory and instead opting to fight Schulz and then refusing a Schulz rematch. Foreman wanted to make his own rules and felt that he was above boxing.

 

Trouble is, if we were to consider the title vacant because George did not fight the top contender for years, we could do the same thing a few times throughout the lineage of the heavyweight title. Was Dempsey's title vacant for fighting sparingly? I believe the consensus is no.

 

Yes, I know.
But I said Shannon Briggs wasn't champion when he fought Lennox Lewis, he was the challenger.
In effect he relinquished the "linear" claim, almost certainly because Foreman and himself and the circumstances in which he won the title from Foreman had totally eroded the legitimacy of the claim.
Foreman de-valued the title to a ridiculous low, and Briggs winning it brought it's worth to exactly nil. And the claim ceased to exist by the time Briggs was in the ring with Lewis, that much is clear.