World Heavyweight Championship

only true champion according to who?


Like I said, boxing aint ruined it's in a fine state :good

 

You can trace Norton's back to his victory over Young. A fight between the best two heavyweights in the world :good

 

Think for yourself, HOUDINI.

Luf hasn't ruined anything.

 

I've killed the game man :-(

 

What is a 'true, historic champion'?

Kirk Douglas?

John L?

Rocky?

I was once a Junior Sussex Discus 'champion' back in the 80s; so I guess I am a 'true, historic champion'...

 

:good

people can pretend there's only one champion per weight class but it's not reality.

 

Gus Lesnevich was without doubt, the greatest light-heavyweight of the 1940s.

 

yes he was the historical champion for many a year!

Forget that Bivins beat him a couple of pounds above the limit. Forget that Charles beat Moore and Bivins and dominated the division, forget all of that!

The historical championship is all that matters and Lesnevich wore this belt proudly :good top 10 LHW of all time, easily :good

 

You know, I'm actually a fan of the Lineal Title when the best man in the division is the one holding it and continually validating himself by taking on all comers and contenders. That's how it should be.

 

Lineal title has nothing to do with who is best. It has to do with historical lineage. Norton was handed his paper title he did not win it by beating Young. Neither fighter beat the champion so neither was at any time the champion. Both were top contenders. At the time Young and Norton fought someone else was the hwt champion.

You personally did not ruin the game of course but the lazy mentality you exhibit did in great part.

 

But linear is the same as any other title in boxing. A man is made champion on an opinion.

Muhammad Ali as 'linear champion' is as justifiable as calling Norton champion in 1978.

You call Norton's title 'paper', but he had a belt like Ali, and like Ali his 'title claim' came from an opinion. So if both had belts and claimed their titles on the opinion of others, what is the difference?

 

TB...sorry you have no idea what you are talking about. You can trace Ali title back to the sports beginning...Sullivan. This is historical merit which give a championship meaning.

What if I created a boxing tournament and crowned the winner the worlds hwt champion? Is that fighters title as legit, does it carry the weight of the title Ali held that he won from the true champion and that can be traced back to the sports beginnings? Of course not but this is what boxing its all about and has been all about the past 30-40 years.

 

How does Ali's lineage in 1978 go back to John L Sullivan's in 1889?

Tunney is the last to claim that lineage in the 1920's. Your claim from Ali goes back to when people decided Moore and Patterson should fight each other in 1956 after Marciano retired.

The WBC comes from a splintering of the WBA in 1963. The WBA comes from the NBA which was set up in 1921. So if the length of history of the title is the factor that makes you decide who was champion, Norton has that over Ali in 1978...

 

You have a poor understanding of boxing history. Alis title is the only title that can be traced to Sullivan. After Tunney retired the two top contenders fought for his title. Same thing after Marciano retired. You can't trace back Nortons paper title because he beat no one to gain the title and someone else was the rightful champion at the time he was handed his paper title.

 

like any other we have wba (which also traces back to Sullivan Incidentally), we have wbc, wbo, ibf, ring (traces back to Dempsey) and the lineal (traces back to Sullivan but now is mostly defunct).

Again you just deny reality, Norton was the WBC champion whether you like it or not.l He held this belt in the heavyweight division.

You prefer a championship which traces back to 2 guys facing off, I prefer a championship held by the best in the division.

You know Robinson didn't hold your version of a linear belt for the majority of his WW reign.