World Heavyweight Championship

the WBA traces back also pal.

 

Completely agree, it's a matter of prestige imo. Noone considered Briggs the champ in 97, everyone considered the winner of Holy v Tyson 2 the champ.

 

Untrue.
Ali was the champion since he beat Foreman, lost to spinks and then beat spinks in the rematch. If you believe titles can be handed to fighters while another is the rightful champion then I really am unsure what you believe. You must beat the champoion to be the champion. If a champion retires the top contenders must fight to prove who should be the nest champion. Norton did none of this. He lost to Ali in 1976 in his bid to win the championship.

 

Well many thought he deserved the victory over Ali anyways.

I believe that the man makes the title and not the other way round. I don't care whether it's WBA/WBC/WBO/IBF/Ring/Lineal or anything else. Many men are champions of one organisation or another, but only one can be the best of the bunch.

 

Please explain how their is 'lineage' to John L from Ali? It finished at Tunney and you are being naive, with your suggestions that the the top two contenders fought in 1930. Why were Larry Gains and George Godfrey not considered? Both had a very strong claim to being better than at least Schmeling at the time. Your 'top two contenders' of both 1930 and 1956 were 'opinion'. I have little good to say about the WBC et al; but at least they do not hide behind 'opinions of unknowns' when making their title matches...

 

well said. the white championship was not unified with the coloured championship when the tunney lineage ended. it could well be argued it was a vacant title until Louis beat Schmelling in the rematch, maybe that can be a new title lineage we should all obey from now on.