World Heavyweight Championship

Being the hwt champion may or may not mean you are the best at that given time. What gives the title importance and weight is the history behind it. Otherwise what stops anyone from creating never-ending champions one after another? (which in reality is the case today and is the main reason why boxing is beyond a complete mess). Ali beat Foreman and did not lose the title until he lost it to Spinks. He then rewon it from Spinks and then retired. norton like Ellis, Terrell, Dokes, Tate, Berbick, Weaver, Coetzee, Page etc etc were never the hwt champion of the world. Period.

 

He was still officially champ by the time he lost to Spinks. This is the criteria in this thread,I think.


I still don't see anything controversial about the score in the Shavers fight. Pretty close but no cigar for Earnie.

 

Even better to be both, which has happened plenty too. Monzon and Hagler are two lineal champs that immediately spring to mind that were also by far The Man in the division over the entire duration of their extended runs on top. Roberto Duran and Jose Napoles throughout the 1970s as well.

With the Heavyweights in recent times aside from the thread topic, it was also a little screwy when George earned the title by beating Moorer, but having accomplished his goal already, didn't really fight anybody from 1995-97 that would've justified his being the best fighter in the division. Spinks from 1985-88 is another and that's not even taking into consideration Holmes won the rematch. It was pretty apparent Tyson was the best fighter in the division by the end of '86. If he wasn't considered that at the time, hindsight certainly shows that to be the case.

 

You forgot to mention Floyd.

By the way, didn't Page beat Coetzee, who at that time was holding the belt? So how was he not a heavyweight champion?

 

Marciano retired. Patterson and Moore then fought for the vacant title which Floyd won so he then became the legit hwt champion. Neither Page nor Coetzee were ever hwt champion. Hwt champions from Ali to Tyson as follows:

Ali
Frazier
Foreman
Ali
Spinks
Ali
Holmes
Spinks
Tyson

 

IF
- we are looking only at the lineal heavyweight championship AND
- go by the official decision (as in Louis-Walcott I, Ali - Norton III) AND
- in Charles-Louis and Ali-Frazier I, Charles and Frazier, respectively, were the defending champions

THEN yes, the next change of title by decision after Baer-Braddock was Ali-Spinks I.

Change any of the above conditions and the answer will be different.

 

Well, I thought your logic was that a fighter can only win the title in the ring, by beating the 'real' champion. Fine, I'll give you Floyd. What makes Lennox heavyweight champion of the world though?

 

Lewis beat Briggs.

Champions Holmes to Lewis.

Holmes
Spinks
Tyson
Douglas
holy
Bowe
holy
Moore
foreman
briggs
Lewis

 

It's not possible to only be champion by beating the champion since champions retire. What's important is if a champion retires that the title then gets passed to the absolute most deserving. Usually this means the top two contenders fight for the vacant title. iF this occurs AND the past champion comes out of retirement and is beaten by the new titilist so much the better. (ala Holmes). So you have Schmeling and Sharkey fighting for Tunneys title once he retired, Moore and Patterson fighting for Marcianos title, Holmes on the strength of his win over Norton and his win over Ali.

 

that's only including lineal champs though.

By the time Ali and Spinks were fighting, Norton was a WBC champ after beating Young.

 

In a perfect world, a champion would be undisputed with a clear distinction between him and all other challengers.

With Big George, I didn't think Holy beat Bowe in the rematch let alone think Moorer beat Holy in the first. At the start of the night, Moorer was not the best HW in the world and at the end of it, neither was George.