What Their Records SHOULD Read...

[BoxBuzz]

Foreman should be given an extra win then I guess.

Seemed he gained an honest win over Briggs.....and the Shultz fight may be a bit close for a reversal. But it could be a wash I suppose. Some may see it just the opposite.

[The Great John L]

If there was still only one belt and not these stupid alphabet titles, then Lewis would have been the challenger and Briggs the champion. Like Ali and Michael Spinks before him, Briggs beat the man who beat the man, going all the way back to Corbett and Sullivan.

With that logic, the trail and therefore the championship, ended with Tunney.

No. Schmeling and Sharkey's fights gave us a universally recognized champion. As I'm sure you already know.

But they didn't "beat the man who beat the man" as you stated. Also, the outcome of that fight hardly determined much of anything, as I'm sure you know.

Besides, even if that fight had ended decisively, the winner of a fight between two selected fighters in a division hardly determines who is the new "man".

I tend to be a boxing traditionalist, but this whole discussion of lineal champions is really pretty silly, because once the line is boken it really is hard to get it going again until you get a fighter like a Louis or Ali who pretty much cleans out a division. Of course, an 8 man tournament of top contenders also seems logical, but despite the logic, few people seem to want to recognize the HW who emerged from such a tournament a few decades back.

[dempseyfire]

With that logic, the trail and therefore the championship, ended with Tunney.

No. Schmeling and Sharkey's fights gave us a universally recognized champion. As I'm sure you already know.

But they didn't "beat the man who beat the man" as you stated. Also, the outcome of that fight hardly determined much of anything, as I'm sure you know.

Besides, even if that fight had ended decisively, the winner of a fight between two selected fighters in a division hardly determines who is the new "man".

I tend to be a boxing traditionalist, but this whole discussion of lineal champions is really pretty silly, because once the line is boken it really is hard to get it going again until you get a fighter like a Louis or Ali who pretty much cleans out a division. Of course, an 8 man tournament of top contenders also seems logical, but despite the logic, few people seem to want to recognize the HW who emerged from such a tournament a few decades back.

There wasn't really an issue with re-establishing the line until the proliferation of belts in the 1980s. If there had only been one belt, Tyson would've fought Spinks much sooner. There's also the issue of bad decisions. Most thought Larry beat Spinks in their rematch, so you could argue Holmes was still the true linear champ when he got KO'd by Tyson, but either way Tyson became THE man.

Then the first Moorer-Holyfield fight screwed everything up again

[keithmoonhangover]

With that logic, the trail and therefore the championship, ended with Tunney.

No. Schmeling and Sharkey's fights gave us a universally recognized champion. As I'm sure you already know.

But they didn't "beat the man who beat the man" as you stated. Also, the outcome of that fight hardly determined much of anything, as I'm sure you know.

Besides, even if that fight had ended decisively, the winner of a fight between two selected fighters in a division hardly determines who is the new "man".
I tend to be a boxing traditionalist, but this whole discussion of lineal champions is really pretty silly, because once the line is boken it really is hard to get it going again until you get a fighter like a Louis or Ali who pretty much cleans out a division. Of course, an 8 man tournament of top contenders also seems logical, but despite the logic, few people seem to want to recognize the HW who emerged from such a tournament a few decades back.

They were thew top two contenders and the winner was universally recognized as the heavyweight champion of the world. By the time they had a rematch. There was no doubt or other claim to the title, so Sharkey was 'the man'. If the title is vacant and the top two contenders fight for it, then you've got your self a champion.

[klompton]

So by gi and others logic as long as you are a lineal champ you can bribe officials, pick and choose opponents, and win gift decisions without fear of consequences??? Thats why we have commissions to begin with. To clean up such nonsense. Champions are not feudal monarchs, regardless what some might want to call them ( kings and monarchs of the ring). In the case of foreman thats one instance i whole heartedly side with the sanctioning bodies. Foreman shit all over the very meaning of a championship in competetive athletics.

[BoxBuzz]

On the other hand, Boxing is about the only sport where we all go back and rewrite history based on the behavior of the officials.

How many football games (american or otherwise) were adversely affected by the refs? And who knows how they would have come out if the refs did "this" instead of "that".

The officiating is part of the game. Just because one official saved Joe Frazier from an early KO in the second fight with Ali, is no reason to turn our backs on the fact that their decisisons and the judges call are part of the "game".

[The Great John L]

They were thew top two contenders and the winner was universally recognized as the heavyweight champion of the world. By the time they had a rematch. There was no doubt or other claim to the title, so Sharkey was 'the man'. If the title is vacant and the top two contenders fight for it, then you've got your self a champion.

Definition of lineal - "being in a direct line of descent from an ancestor"

As I stated, picking 2 guys, whether the concensus is that they are the top 2 at the moment, hardly constitutes a reasonable method of determining who the new "man" is. Schmeling did not "beat the man", so the lineal title ended at that time.

[keithmoonhangover]

So by gi and others logic as long as you are a lineal champ you can bribe officials, pick and choose opponents, and win gift decisions without fear of consequences??? Thats why we have commissions to begin with. To clean up such nonsense. Champions are not feudal monarchs, regardless what some might want to call them ( kings and monarchs of the ring). In the case of foreman thats one instance i whole heartedly side with the sanctioning bodies. Foreman shit all over the very meaning of a championship in competetive athletics.

Sanctioning Bodies.

Are you talking about the......

WBA - Hasim Rahman is their #1 contender at heavyweight right now.
WBC - Graciano Rocchigiani, champion, then not champion.
IBF - Bob Lee Snr. Need I say more.

You would side with these scumbags over George Foreman?

[keithmoonhangover]

They were thew top two contenders and the winner was universally recognized as the heavyweight champion of the world. By the time they had a rematch. There was no doubt or other claim to the title, so Sharkey was 'the man'. If the title is vacant and the top two contenders fight for it, then you've got your self a champion.

Definition of lineal - "being in a direct line of descent from an ancestor"

As I stated, picking 2 guys, whether the concensus is that they are the top 2 at the moment, hardly constitutes a reasonable method of determining who the new "man" is. Schmeling did not "beat the man", so the lineal title ended at that time.

Using your logic, how was there ever a heavyweight champion of the world? I'll tell you how. Two guys got in the ring, that's how. One of them wasn't born into it.

Putting that to one side..... If you don't think that no one can claim to be 'the man' since Gene Tunney retired, then you are in a very small minority.

[The Great John L]

Using your logic, how was there ever a heavyweight champion of the world? I'll tell you how. Two guys got in the ring, that's how. One of them wasn't born into it.

Putting that to one side..... If you don't think that no one can claim to be 'the man' since Gene Tunney retired, then you are in a very small minority.

Don't put words in my mouth, because you're the one hanging his hat on the old "the man that beat the man" adage. I was merely pointing out that there is absolutley no logic to something like a "lineal" HW championship. Of course there have been HW champions, and I consider Schmeling and Sharkey both champions. You're the one that introduced the indefensible "lineal" championship to the discussion. Or at least you latched onto it like it really means something. If you want to try applying some type of logic to a "lineal" champion, then that logic completely falls apart, as noted with the introduction of Tunney. By definition, "lineal" champion is meaningless, that's why I added the definition of the word in my previous post.

The "championship" era of boxing probably started falling apart about 40 years ago when it become common to recognize multiple "champions" in each division.

[keithmoonhangover]

Using your logic, how was there ever a heavyweight champion of the world? I'll tell you how. Two guys got in the ring, that's how. One of them wasn't born into it.

Putting that to one side..... If you don't think that no one can claim to be 'the man' since Gene Tunney retired, then you are in a very small minority.

Don't put words in my mouth, because you're the one hanging his hat on the old "the man that beat the man" adage. I was merely pointing out that there is absolutley no logic to something like a "lineal" HW championship. Of course there have been HW champions, and I consider Schmeling and Sharkey both champions. You're the one that introduced the indefensible "lineal" championship to the discussion. Or at least you latched onto it like it really means something. If you want to try applying some type of logic to a "lineal" champion, then that logic completely falls apart, as noted with the introduction of Tunney. By definition, "lineal" champion is meaningless, that's why I added the definition of the word in my previous post.

The "championship" era of boxing probably started falling apart about 40 years ago when it become common to recognize multiple "champions" in each division.

I didn't say anything about lineal. I never mentioned it. I used words like Heavyweight Champion of the World and 'the man'. I didn't latch on to anything. Mike Tyson was 'the man' when he beat Mike Spinks. When Lewis beat Briggs and Holyfield he was 'the man' and no matter who the WBA and IBF said were their champion, Lewis retired as 'The Heavyweight Champion of the World'. I know it, you know it and falls all over the world knew it. Lewis was the man.

[The Great John L]

I didn't say anything about lineal. I never mentioned it. I used words like Heavyweight Champion of the World and 'the man'. I didn't latch on to anything. Mike Tyson was 'the man' when he beat Mike Spinks. When Lewis beat Briggs and Holyfield he was 'the man' and no matter who the WBA and IBF said were their champion, Lewis retired as 'The Heavyweight Champion of the World'. I know it, you know it and falls all over the world knew it. Lewis was the man.

Agreed, Lewis was the last real HW champion. Had there only been one Klitschko, or if VK would have never returned, then we would probably have a champion now, but it's hard to call either one a champion since they won't fight each other.

[BoxBuzz]

for the record....I long for the days when we could refer to "the man that beat the man"....but now...I'm afraid we'll have to amend it to
"The man who beats the Bros" and wait for the next era to begin.

[keithmoonhangover]

for the record....I long for the days when we could refer to "the man that beat the man"....but now...I'm afraid we'll have to amend it to
"The man who beats the Bros" and wait for the next era to begin.

If Vitali retires, I think it's safe to call Wlad 'the man'. He's most of the belts, including The Ring belt and he's beaten Chageev and Haye, who at the time were the highest ranked non Klitschko and also WBA champion.

[klompton]

So by gi and others logic as long as you are a lineal champ you can bribe officials, pick and choose opponents, and win gift decisions without fear of consequences??? Thats why we have commissions to begin with. To clean up such nonsense. Champions are not feudal monarchs, regardless what some might want to call them ( kings and monarchs of the ring). In the case of foreman thats one instance i whole heartedly side with the sanctioning bodies. Foreman shit all over the very meaning of a championship in competetive athletics.

Sanctioning Bodies.

Are you talking about the......

WBA - Hasim Rahman is their #1 contender at heavyweight right now.
WBC - Graciano Rocchigiani, champion, then not champion.
IBF - Bob Lee Snr. Need I say more.

You would side with these scumbags over George Foreman?

In a situation where Foreman is bribing Bob Lee Sr. to get Axel Schulz ranked and the wont give him a rematch when he gets a gift decision (and yes that decision was a robbery, Foreman lost nearly every round), yes, I do side with the sanctioning body. Give me one good reason why Foreman should been allowed to just go on fighting bums just to extend his record and keep the money flowing in. Who is Foreman? Why should he get special privileges? This is a guy who flat out admitted he was ducking Riddick Bowe and Lennox Lewis on live television and you want to stand behind his flimsy claim in order to legitimize Lewis? O...K.... Like I said, he made a mockery of what it means to be a champ.

[keithmoonhangover]

So by gi and others logic as long as you are a lineal champ you can bribe officials, pick and choose opponents, and win gift decisions without fear of consequences??? Thats why we have commissions to begin with. To clean up such nonsense. Champions are not feudal monarchs, regardless what some might want to call them ( kings and monarchs of the ring). In the case of foreman thats one instance i whole heartedly side with the sanctioning bodies. Foreman shit all over the very meaning of a championship in competetive athletics.

Sanctioning Bodies.

Are you talking about the......

WBA - Hasim Rahman is their #1 contender at heavyweight right now.
WBC - Graciano Rocchigiani, champion, then not champion.
IBF - Bob Lee Snr. Need I say more.

You would side with these scumbags over George Foreman?

In a situation where Foreman is bribing Bob Lee Sr. to get Axel Schulz ranked and the wont give him a rematch when he gets a gift decision (and yes that decision was a robbery, Foreman lost nearly every round), yes, I do side with the sanctioning body. Give me one good reason why Foreman should been allowed to just go on fighting bums just to extend his record and keep the money flowing in. Who is Foreman? Why should he get special privileges? This is a guy who flat out admitted he was ducking Riddick Bowe and Lennox Lewis on live television and you want to stand behind his flimsy claim in order to legitimize Lewis? O...K.... Like I said, he made a mockery of what it means to be a champ.

What's your take on Bowe ducking Lewis?

[The Great John L]

In a situation where Foreman is bribing Bob Lee Sr. to get Axel Schulz ranked and the wont give him a rematch when he gets a gift decision (and yes that decision was a robbery, Foreman lost nearly every round), yes, I do side with the sanctioning body. Give me one good reason why Foreman should been allowed to just go on fighting bums just to extend his record and keep the money flowing in. Who is Foreman? Why should he get special privileges? This is a guy who flat out admitted he was ducking Riddick Bowe and Lennox Lewis on live television and you want to stand behind his flimsy claim in order to legitimize Lewis? O...K.... Like I said, he made a mockery of what it means to be a champ.

George spent the better part of two careers ducking guys. He certainly avoided every contender on his way to "earning" his shot against Holyfield during his second career. I do think he fought a very good fight against Holy, but geez, he had absolutely no one on his resume prior to that, besides a bloated CW who mysteriously quit on his stool and a fringe contender who also decided to bow out early.

His first career was also extremely well managed as his management severely throttled back his competition after he nearly got upset by a past his best LH. Just look at the guys he fought between the 2nd Peralta fight and his blitzing of Frazier. There is a very good reason why he was a pretty big underdog against Frazier despite a 37-0 record. Of course I give him great credit for taking on Lyle in his comeback after getting schooled by Ali, but I think at that point his management realized that he needed some accomplishment after Ali to have any chance at the really big payday again, since there was little public demand for a Foreman-Ali rematch. That, plus Lyle wasn't exactly noted for his defense.

[keithmoonhangover]

In a situation where Foreman is bribing Bob Lee Sr. to get Axel Schulz ranked and the wont give him a rematch when he gets a gift decision (and yes that decision was a robbery, Foreman lost nearly every round), yes, I do side with the sanctioning body. Give me one good reason why Foreman should been allowed to just go on fighting bums just to extend his record and keep the money flowing in. Who is Foreman? Why should he get special privileges? This is a guy who flat out admitted he was ducking Riddick Bowe and Lennox Lewis on live television and you want to stand behind his flimsy claim in order to legitimize Lewis? O...K.... Like I said, he made a mockery of what it means to be a champ.

George spent the better part of two careers ducking guys. He certainly avoided every contender on his way to "earning" his shot against Holyfield during his second career. I do think he fought a very good fight against Holy, but geez, he had absolutely no one on his resume prior to that, besides a bloated CW who mysteriously quit on his stool and a fringe contender who also decided to bow out early.

His first career was also extremely well managed as his management severely throttled back his competition after he nearly got upset by a past his best LH. Just look at the guys he fought between the 2nd Peralta fight and his blitzing of Frazier. There is a very good reason why he was a pretty big underdog against Frazier despite a 37-0 record. Of course I give him great credit for taking on Lyle in his comeback after getting schooled by Ali, but I think at that point his management realized that he needed some accomplishment after Ali to have any chance at the really big payday again, since there was little public demand for a Foreman-Ali rematch. That, plus Lyle wasn't exactly noted for his defense.

I agree to a degree, but Foreman was ranked in the top ten by The Ring and Boxing Illustrated ahead of the Holyfield fight if memory serves. So it's not like he wasn't there on merit.

As a champion the first time round he fought Ken Norton and that is a stand out performance. Put it together with the Frazier fight and he deserves a tremendous amount of credit.

[The Great John L]

I agree to a degree, but Foreman was ranked in the top ten by The Ring and Boxing Illustrated ahead of the Holyfield fight if memory serves. So it's not like he wasn't there on merit.

As a champion the first time round he fought Ken Norton and that is a stand out performance. Put it together with the Frazier fight and he deserves a tremendous amount of credit.

He earned his shot against Holyfield by fighting a long string of no, or little hopers. Of course he was ranked in the top 10, but many fighters get top 10 rankings never having beaten a contender. And certainly Foreman made a great matchup for Holy since he was money in the bank, and appeared to pose little real threat. None of that precludes the fact that Foreman ducked very credible HW contender in his lead up to the Holyfiled fight, and his competition after that improved only slightly.

As far as his first career, there is no way you can denegrate wins over Frazier, Norton, Lyle and earlier Chuvalo. But his record leading up to getting his shot against Frazier was shockingly bad for a guy who was a top 5 guy. Any currently ranked HW fighting a similar string of guys as those would be ridiculed. It was obvious at the time that he was carefully managed after the first Peralta fight showed his limitations. Of course he was also immensely strong, could knock over a building, had an enourmous will to win and a damn fine jab, but he was also extremely limited, likely due to his short amatuer career and intentionally stunted growth in the pro ranks. It's unfortunate that he retired after the Young fight, because he was showing improvement in his technique and pacing and I'm sure a few more fights against Dennis and LeDoux type competition could have advanced him even further.

[klompton]

My take is that he was avoiding being locked into a promotional contract. He offered to fight Lewis later and Lewis turned him down. There is a lot more to that story than the commonly accepted "chicken Bowe" story and it all had to do with contract disputes between the promoters.

[keithmoonhangover]

My take is that he was avoiding being locked into a promotional contract. He offered to fight Lewis later and Lewis turned him down. There is a lot more to that story than the commonly accepted "chicken Bowe" story and it all had to do with contract disputes between the promoters.

He didn't do it to avoid a promotional contract. If Lewis was the mandatory, then the fight would go to purse bids if neither man's promoter could agree terms. If it went to bids it would be a one fight deal. Bowe didn't want to fight Lewis and so he binned the title. Simple as that. Bowe had the guts to fight Michael Dokes instead.

[klompton]

Thats not true because all of that was part of the elimination contest which Bowe bowed out of before fighting Lewis, after he won the title. Go back and do some reading.

[keithmoonhangover]

Thats not true because all of that was part of the elimination contest which Bowe bowed out of before fighting Lewis, after he won the title. Go back and do some reading.

I'm quite aware of the elimination and I'm also aware that Bowe dumped the belt and avoided his mandatory - Lewis.

Bowe had agreed, when he entered the tournament, that he would fight the winner of Lewis-Ruddock, but BOWE BACKED OUT. Not Lewis. Bowe ducked Lewis END OF STORY.

[klompton]

So it is your contention thats its a simple black and white matter with no exteranious circumstances?

[keithmoonhangover]

So it is your contention thats its a simple black and white matter with no exteranious circumstances?

Bowe could have fought Lewis, but he chose not to. That is ducking someone my friend. Exteranious circumstances would be a death in the family or a broken arm, not fighting Michael Dokes, because he was completely shot and it was easy money. Stop defending him ffs.