Who was the 'Champion' at this time...

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 18 Apr 2008, 18:27

Ok how do you guys look at this....

If you were to look at one, and what paper title holds the most water.

who was the HW champion of the world say in 1978-80....
or in 1986-87...
1993 ?
how about 1997-98 ?

dare I ask....today post Lewis...?

I have my ideas, but they are opinions. Who however do you think deserves the strap in this confused world of boxing.

Brute · Post by **Brute** » 18 Apr 2008, 18:44

78-80 Holmes

86-89 Tyson

97-98 Lewis

Now...Peter

WBC looks pretty good.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 18 Apr 2008, 19:40

1978-1980 it was Holmes. I don't understand the logic that says that a linear title can survive a fighters retirement. By that logic Gene Tunney is still Heavyweight champion. If you retire, you lose the linear championship.

86-87? I think you mean 86-88. It is tough, because Spinks never retired. But its hard to say it wasn't Tyson. I tend to think that a linear title kind of becomes meaningless if you aren't fighting anybody. Part of me feels that Tyson's activity and unifications earned him the title, even before he fights Spinks. It's obviously all subjective, but I think you can "strip" a linear champion.

97-98 I guess it should be Foreman to Briggs to Lewis.

Now... Peter? That makes no sense. It's Wlad.

Brute · Post by **Brute** » 18 Apr 2008, 20:44

Klitschko won a majority decision against Peter some years ago. Peter has lost to nobody else. It would be interesting to see how they would go now.

I was just pointing out the quality of WBC title holders over that period of time. When Tyson beat Spinks in 1988 he proved who was the true champion of that time in no uncertain manner. Spinks had retired anyway. Tyson's self destruction did not happen until 1990.

Are you really trying to tell me Lewis was not the best heavyweight in the late 1990s?

"Linear" has not meant shit in a long time.

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 18 Apr 2008, 20:53

I have my own ideas who I feel should be. BUt heres the thing it just should not be like that.

How do I explain the lineage of the HW championship to say my young nephew ?

Kids in all there innocence and purity struggle to comprehend the greediness of alphabet titles.

Long ago we lost the monarchs of the ring..now we have parliaments of boxing.

Brute · Post by **Brute** » 18 Apr 2008, 21:09

For a Crow-eater you make a lot of sense.

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 18 Apr 2008, 21:22

Thats only natural ;)

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 18 Apr 2008, 21:58

Ok, I see. Yes, while the WBC is by no means perfect, more often than not their champion is the true champion. That said, they did strip Holmes, who went on to become the IBF belt holder, and as far as the present division, Wlad is the champion, though I would also like to see a rematch.

Anyway, I'm talking about who the "legitimate" champion is. And that is basically the linear title. I disagree that it doesn't mean "shit", you become champion by beating the champion. Where did I imply that Lewis wasn't the best Heavyweight of the late 90's? In my opinion Lewis is the best Heavyweight of the post-Holmes era; but Foreman became champion after beating Moorer, and Lewis won that title through Briggs.

Brett Paul Dunbar · Post by **Brett Paul Dunbar** » 18 Apr 2008, 23:45

I Feel Fine wrote:1978-1980 it was Holmes. I don't understand the logic that says that a linear title can survive a fighters retirement. By that logic Gene Tunney is still Heavyweight champion. If you retire, you lose the linear championship.

You can make a distinction between a fighter who is retired and one who is "retired". If they stay out of the ring a few years or permanently then that counts, if they take another fight a few months later that doesn't.

In 1978-80 you can reasonably argue several different positions:

1 Ali wasn't inactive long enough to vacate and remained champion, the gap between Ali-Spinks II and Ali-Holmes was shorter than several inter-fight gaps that didn't interrupt a title reign.

2 The title was vacant; Holmes was the best but there were several other legitimate contenders who he had to beat to become champion.

3 Holmes was interim/provisional champion. He would become full champion if Ali stayed retired for a bit longer and his reign could then be backdated to Ali's retirement but Ali could reclaim the title if he came out of retirement.

4 Holmes was the champion.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 19 Apr 2008, 00:13

That's fair, but I would take the position that Ali had retired, which someone like Braddock or Dempsey had not, he had given up his portion of the title, the WBA belt, something someone like Braddock and Dempsey also hadn't done either, and so I think its wrong to say that the linear title should stay with Ali. As for it going to Holmes, well, he beat Norton who had a belt, he beat Weaver who went on to take a belt, I wouldn't disagree with the notion that beating Ali might have solidified him as champion in a sense, but I don't agree with the idea that Ali was still the linear champion.

It's obviously all very subjective, I just think that retirement should be the cut off point, regardless of how long you've been retired.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 19 Apr 2008, 00:47

The second you retire, the championship is no longer yours. IFF is right. That's why Holmes' linear title reign runs 1979-1985 (though it is often reported as 1978, when he beat Norton, or 1980, when he stopped Ali --- both are wrong).

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 19 Apr 2008, 01:49

To some extent, this thread ties in to that Jones-Michalczewski argument on the Current Scene. People have a hard time separating the best fighter from the linear champion.

To clarify...

The linear champion, the man in the division, in the following years was...

1978-79: Ali.
1979-80: Holmes (Upon Ali's retirement in '79).
1986-87: Spinks. Spinks. Spinks. Best fighter & linear are different, but until he got him in the ring, Tyson was still only a beltholder.
1993: Bowe to Holyfield.
1997-98: Foreman, to Briggs, to Lewis.

This is where the subjectivity ends. The linear champion may not unofficially be the best, but the fact is, someone like Roy Jones was never Light-Heavy champ. The linear champion is the guy, everyone else is a beltholder/contender for the real title.

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 19 Apr 2008, 05:11

Im just going to confuse the poor kid now :P

generic screen name · Post by **generic screen name** » 19 Apr 2008, 11:06

Now if you talk about the man who beat the man then it goes:

Patterson>Liston>Ali>Frazier>Foreman>Ali>Leon Spinks>Ali>Holmes>Michael Spinks>Tyson>Douglas>Holyfield>Bowe>Holyfield>Moorer>Foreman>Briggs>Lewis>Rahman>Lewis

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 19 Apr 2008, 23:46

and post Lewis we have.....chaos.

Diamond WEAPON · Post by **Diamond WEAPON** » 20 Apr 2008, 00:43

Robinson wrote:Im just going to confuse the poor kid now :P

The Ring Magazine Champion is the true Champ nowadays. Everything else don't mean jack...

Here ya go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Th ... _champions

forreal · Post by **forreal** » 20 Apr 2008, 11:45

Diamond WEAPON wrote:
Robinson wrote:Im just going to confuse the poor kid now :P
The Ring Magazine Champion is the true Champ nowadays. Everything else don't mean jack...

Here ya go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Th ... _champions

For those of you who think Ring magazine is the gospal of boxing rateings, may I remind you that the touted Michael Spinks as thye "true" HW champion before the Tyson fight, and Leff Lacy the "true" champ at 168 befoire the Calzaghe fight, (Only 2 of many examples)

The most accurate rankings out there at the moment, are the IBO rankings. If all the sanctionaing bodies would conduct themselves like the IBO, boxing would be better for it.

As for "linear champions", it is a meanigless subjective term. Like it or not, a belt from a sanctioning body denotes that no one has taken it away from the owner, and any fighter who claims they dont care to have one,..ANY one... is a liar.

JC · Post by JC » 20 Apr 2008, 11:52

forreal wrote:
Diamond WEAPON wrote:
Robinson wrote:Im just going to confuse the poor kid now :P
The Ring Magazine Champion is the true Champ nowadays. Everything else don't mean jack...

Here ya go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Th ... _champions
For those of you who think Ring magazine is the gospal of boxing rateings, may I remind you that the touted Michael Spinks as thye "true" HW champion before the Tyson fight, and Leff Lacy the "true" champ at 168 befoire the Calzaghe fight, (Only 2 of many examples)

The most accurate rankings out there at the moment, are the IBO rankings. If all the sanctionaing bodies would conduct themselves like the IBO, boxing would be better for it.

As for "linear champions", it is a meanigless subjective term. Like it or not, a belt from a sanctioning body denotes that no one has taken it away from the owner, and any fighter who claims they dont care to have one,..ANY one... is a liar.

Agree, ring magazine's rankings may not be as crooked as the alphabet boys but are they just as subjective as anyone else's.

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 20 Apr 2008, 12:54

Robinson wrote:Ok how do you guys look at this....

If you were to look at one, and what paper title holds the most water.

who was the HW champion of the world say in 1978-80....
or in 1986-87...
1993 ?
how about 1997-98 ?

dare I ask....today post Lewis...?

I have my ideas, but they are opinions. Who however do you think deserves the strap in this confused world of boxing.

I would say in 78-80 Larry Holmes, 86-87 Mike Tyson, 1993 Bowe then Holyfield, 1997-98 Holyfield, and today Vlad. Its not about which strap holds most water but rather who is the linear champ, or if that cant be determined who is the best fighter

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 20 Apr 2008, 20:06

forreal wrote:
Diamond WEAPON wrote:
Robinson wrote:Im just going to confuse the poor kid now :P
The Ring Magazine Champion is the true Champ nowadays. Everything else don't mean jack...

Here ya go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Th ... _champions
For those of you who think Ring magazine is the gospal of boxing rateings, may I remind you that the touted Michael Spinks as thye "true" HW champion before the Tyson fight, and Leff Lacy the "true" champ at 168 befoire the Calzaghe fight, (Only 2 of many examples)

The most accurate rankings out there at the moment, are the IBO rankings. If all the sanctionaing bodies would conduct themselves like the IBO, boxing would be better for it.

As for "linear champions", it is a meanigless subjective term. Like it or not, a belt from a sanctioning body denotes that no one has taken it away from the owner, and any fighter who claims they dont care to have one,..ANY one... is a liar.

You're new to boxing.

forreal · Post by **forreal** » 20 Apr 2008, 20:30

Goodnight, Irene wrote:
forreal wrote:
Diamond WEAPON wrote: The Ring Magazine Champion is the true Champ nowadays. Everything else don't mean jack...

Here ya go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Th ... _champions
For those of you who think Ring magazine is the gospal of boxing rateings, may I remind you that the touted Michael Spinks as thye "true" HW champion before the Tyson fight, and Leff Lacy the "true" champ at 168 befoire the Calzaghe fight, (Only 2 of many examples)

The most accurate rankings out there at the moment, are the IBO rankings. If all the sanctionaing bodies would conduct themselves like the IBO, boxing would be better for it.

As for "linear champions", it is a meanigless subjective term. Like it or not, a belt from a sanctioning body denotes that no one has taken it away from the owner, and any fighter who claims they dont care to have one,..ANY one... is a liar.
You're new to boxing.

Ummm....no son, I'm not
Matter of fact, I was neck deep in the sport when script reading media hacks like Maxxy Kellerman was potty training, mand years before like Jim wannabhe Lamply was trying so patheticly for his "Down goes Frazier" qoutation.

Ring magazine is part of the Boxing media, and for all the blaming of promoters, managers and sanctionaing bodies, the boxing media is most of all, what is wrong with boxing.

The term "linear". or ""linial champion" is one of the many quasi terms and products of the boxing media and it's desperate attempt to create clear neat lines of black and white, in a sport where almost everything is a shade of gray, and the internet boxing media and lemming like fans who are all too willing to parret the nonsense. It is a consensus of fools.

In a world where it never rains, where gas is free, and there are $5 blow jobs, YES, there would be 1 universally recognized champion per weight class, no sanctioning fees, no purse bids, Freddie Roach could recite Shakespear and Don King would pay his 4 roiund soup cans 3K per fight.

Sadly, this is the real world.

Title belts DO matter. in fact, once you stip away the staqrry eyed longing for batman to come and rescue the sport, they are all that matter in terms of a boxing hiarchey. Some are better then others, but they are all here to stay

Deal with it.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 20 Apr 2008, 20:33

Are you the same member who posted under the name, "Four Real" or someone different?

forreal · Post by **forreal** » 20 Apr 2008, 21:32

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Are you the same member who posted under the name, "Four Real" or someone different?

I dont recall posting under the name Four real, but all recognizable trade mark screen names do in these discussions, is cause the "poster' to become the discussion, as opposed to the topic, this is why I would much rather be anyone and anyone, and perhaps be unknown as any particular poster.
If it seems I cut against the grain of a lot of what has been "agreed to" by the "Regs" in these forums, it is not my attempt at trolling or to be a jerk, it is simply because as is often the case in this type of venue, some very vocal, but less then knowledgeable folks (some posters, some editors) have created the house platitudes, many of which are flat out wrong.
Sometimes water finds it's own level, sometimes not. I understand ole Dracagon has been deposed from the sight. It may be bad form to talk about those not here to defend themselves, but he was a classic example. The problem wasnt what he didnt know, the problem was what he know for sure, but just wasnt so.
He took great offense at my proving him wrong on a semi regular basis, but the fact that he showed in spades (no pun intended) the motive for many of his "opinions", speaks volumes

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 20 Apr 2008, 22:16

Foreal

The IBO uses that mathematical system does it not ?

You see I find that to be flawed also, while that is great in regular weekend and seasonal sports, it gets harder with guys who fight in-frequently and so on.

A MMA website uses the same system. I shall try to find the link later. And it has some pretty well...weird rankings.

I guess we all have our own ways to rank fighters.

I think the boxing media(writer-commentary) field has become over the years an almost aristocratic wankathon of men who sit back and look at the fights and fighters from the same old eyes. The struggle for quotable definitions of men and matches and they become the authorities on who should be where in what ever list or ranking you can imagine.

How about we get some new perspectives out there on it. Not all fighters are meat heads. They should have some credibility and opinions as well.

Boxing seems to be more and more confused these days, struggling to find relevance and grappling with its place in the world. The hard fact is that external threats (as wrongly perceived as they are ) such as MMA and the likes are not the danger to boxing. It is the internal lunacy of so many champions, belts and perhaps divisions that makes it hard for those hard core fans to know who is who let alone those who want to be part time or casual fans.

What boxing has now is so many 'legitimate' claimants to that great title. Honestly...how the Hell do you answer this question....
"who is the heavyweight champion of the world" to a casual fan or some one newer to the sport ?

Until that becomes a single answer (ie a mans name) then boxing is going to go on to being a less relevant and dwindling sport on the popular front.

Many of us live in the recent or distant past for a love of what was, yet perhaps those in positions of boxing reknown spend to much time there and really have no real answers at solving the questions and problems of boxing.

Whether IBO, WBC, WBA, IBF, WBU, WBO, IBC and so on and so on these belts are only as legitimate as the publich perceptions of the men who wear them. And until as such time that the best men fight one another for the top position a belt means about as much as a smiley face on a small childs report card...its something briefly at the time, but when your a grown up...who cares.

Sorry to rant and go on...but I am genuinely concerned and frustrated at just how decayed this sport has become out of sheer greed and postition jockying and this has more to do with the sports sanction bodies, media, promoters and writers....and less with the fighters who seem to be trapped in a un-ending maze of bull shit perceptions.

Kym

forreal · Post by **forreal** » 20 Apr 2008, 22:49

Robinson wrote:Foreal

The IBO uses that mathematical system does it not ?

You see I find that to be flawed also, while that is great in regular weekend and seasonal sports, it gets harder with guys who fight in-frequently and so on.

A MMA website uses the same system. I shall try to find the link later. And it has some pretty well...weird rankings.

I guess we all have our own ways to rank fighters.

I think the boxing media(writer-commentary) field has become over the years an almost aristocratic wankathon of men who sit back and look at the fights and fighters from the same old eyes. The struggle for quotable definitions of men and matches and they become the authorities on who should be where in what ever list or ranking you can imagine.

How about we get some new perspectives out there on it. Not all fighters are meat heads. They should have some credibility and opinions as well.

Boxing seems to be more and more confused these days, struggling to find relevance and grappling with its place in the world. The hard fact is that external threats (as wrongly perceived as they are ) such as MMA and the likes are not the danger to boxing. It is the internal lunacy of so many champions, belts and perhaps divisions that makes it hard for those hard core fans to know who is who let alone those who want to be part time or casual fans.

What boxing has now is so many 'legitimate' claimants to that great title. Honestly...how the Hell do you answer this question....
"who is the heavyweight champion of the world" to a casual fan or some one newer to the sport ?

Until that becomes a single answer (ie a mans name) then boxing is going to go on to being a less relevant and dwindling sport on the popular front.

Many of us live in the recent or distant past for a love of what was, yet perhaps those in positions of boxing reknown spend to much time there and really have no real answers at solving the questions and problems of boxing.

Whether IBO, WBC, WBA, IBF, WBU, WBO, IBC and so on and so on these belts are only as legitimate as the publich perceptions of the men who wear them. And until as such time that the best men fight one another for the top position a belt means about as much as a smiley face on a small childs report card...its something briefly at the time, but when your a grown up...who cares.

Sorry to rant and go on...but I am genuinely concerned and frustrated at just how decayed this sport has become out of sheer greed and postition jockying and this has more to do with the sports sanction bodies, media, promoters and writers....and less with the fighters who seem to be trapped in a un-ending maze of bull shit perceptions.

Kym

You make some great points, which is refreshing.
Yes, the IBO's system is not perfect, but it is a far cry better then the other sanctioning bodies, and a hell of a lot better then a magaizine that had devolved from a classic publication, into a rag dedicated to the advancement of it's own pomposity.

The short banswer is, the days of 'The undisputed, unchallanged, universally recognized champion" are gone, and they are not comming back.
While it is a romantic notion to wish nit would, be careful what youy wish for. Imagine if you will, a war of elimination in the currecnt weight classes, with hundreds of fighters chasing a single coveted title.
The fact is, the NOTION of unification, might just be far more appealing then unification itself.
How many Sam Peter vs James Toney, and Roy Jones vs Felix Trinidad fights could you stomach over the coarse of a year ? Once the top contenders get eliminated, you the fights you title fights you would see would have all the exitement of the Vlad vs Ray Austen epic.
Are you SURE that is what you want from the sport ?
Don't forget, why do most titles change hands without being won or lost in a fight ?
A fighters refusal to take a fight with a top contender
I for one, would rather see the alphabet soup, then see promoters, mangers and fighters hold a title hostage
Personally, I would rather watch paint dry
To me, it is all about the sport and the science of boxing, not about a savior and a super hero to unite the belts.
Now, having said all that...would a SINGLE sanctioning body with a baseball style commissioner be ideal ?
You bet....but there are those who would fight to the death to prevent it. WAY too m uch money at stake.
Hate to say it, but the only way that is going to happen, if for the state commissions to get together, and legislate and llitigate the demise of the sanctioning bodies, and get the international community to fall in line. Then HOPE, it is not "The new boss, same as the old boss" and we dont get fooled again

Who was the 'Champion' at this time...

Who was the 'Champion' at this time...

Re: Who was the 'Champion' at this time...