Was Shannon Briggs legitimately THE Heavyweight Champion?

sweetsci · Post by **sweetsci** » 27 Jan 2006, 18:23

As the header and poll question asks, was Shannon Briggs legitimately The Heavyweight Champion Of The World after his "win" against George Foreman until he was kayoed by Lennox Lewis? I say he was - although George Foreman was a terrible champion the second time around and didn't defend against any deserving challengers, I really don't like it when champions are stripped of their titles, and I would've recognized him as champion until he was either beat or he retired. So, when Briggs beat Foreman, albeit dubiously, I recognized him as the legit World Champion.

Lennox Lewis got a lot of flack for "defending" his WBC belt against Briggs, but Ring magazine pointed out that Briggs had the linear title and that Lewis was smart for fighting him and trying to become "the man who beat the man who beat the man."

I know many will point out that Foreman was stripped for not fighting worthy challengers and that Holyfield and Lewis had both earned the right to be called Champion, and while I don't agree with this view, I do understand it.

I'm just curious as to which side the majority of BoxRec folks fall on.

Randineous · Post by **Randineous** » 27 Jan 2006, 18:49

As someone who gives very little credence to those alphabet trinkets that some fighters carry around, I'd have to say that Briggs was the world champion when he "beat" Foreman.

He mostly fought like he didn't even want that distinction in the Foreman fight, and how the judges scored it for him is still a great mystery to me. But regardless, he was in fact given the judges decision over "the man who beat the man", so I have to acknowledge that he was "the man" after the fight.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 28 Jan 2006, 21:21

I would rather have a lineal title and have all the built in problems that go with that, than all the problems that we are currently enduring with the current insanity. Yes he was champion.

barry · Post by **barry** » 29 Jan 2006, 04:55

Absolutely Briggs was the true heavyweight champion when he beat Foreman, regardless of how bad the decision was!

jsc1973 · Post by **jsc1973** » 29 Jan 2006, 19:57

Yes, he was. And the best thing Lennox Lewis ever did was to immediately fight him, and get the lineal world heavyweight title back in the hands of someone who was worthy of holding it.

barry · Post by **barry** » 29 Jan 2006, 20:09

>>>I'm on the fence with this one. Foreman was the Lineal World Heavyweight Champion, but he stopped being a true "champion" when he refused to give Schultz a rematch, and started taking on the Crawford Grimsleys of the world. Shannon Briggs wasn't that bad of a fighter. He would have slaughtered Jim Corbett.<<<

What a surprise there...you're on the fence! So you think that a person just stops being the "true" champion eh? Well then, what about the years that Holyfield was champion, but refused to face the likes of Lewis, Moorer and Bowe and instead chose to fight the likes of Foreman, Bert Cooper and Larry Holmes...how about that, did he stop being the "true" champion? Or how about Larry Holmes not fighting the likes of Pinklon Thomas, Greg Page and while instead facing the likes of Scott Frank, David Bey and Lucien Ridriguez...did he stop being the "true" champ? I could go on and on back through most title reigns!

See, what I think is this, you rarely ever know what you are saying and only a quarter of the time ever know what you talking about to begin with and then when someone calls you on it, you change your tune to something else, and then something else...as today's generation would say...you're nothing but a poser!

barry · Post by **barry** » 29 Jan 2006, 21:46

But that would be giving credit to the alphabet titles, which is what boxing needs to get away from!

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 30 Jan 2006, 02:33

..it's a tenuous hold on the title....but....yeah..weak though he was briggs was the lineal champion. if i insist, as i do, that tyson didn't become the heavyweight champion of the world until he kayoed michael spinks, then i have to apply the same criteria (or is it criterium?) to briggs.

now...a queastion...what the hell does jim corbett have to do with any of this?

mrbassie · Post by **mrbassie** » 30 Jan 2006, 04:31

Briggs was the champion.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 30 Jan 2006, 04:33

you go by the man who beat the man who beat the man, etc. briggs BEAT THE MAN. hes champion. however i might add he probably is the worst linear heavyweight champion of all time

mrbassie · Post by **mrbassie** » 30 Jan 2006, 05:05

here's one then: would the Briggs who lost to Lewis beat the Douglas that Holyfield beat in 1?

bill.lockhart · Post by **bill.lockhart** » 30 Jan 2006, 06:44

Shannon Briggs has to be recognized, unfortunately. The problem was George wasn't up to being the chanpion anymore. He needed the money & was just looking to make a few bucks off his name & the belt. If a champion won't defend the belt against the leading contender within a reasonable amount of time, he should be stripped for the good of the game, unlesss their is a legitimate excuse. Foreman should have retired.

barry · Post by **barry** » 30 Jan 2006, 06:54

The worst thing about Briggs is that Foreman actually should have won the fight by a pretty wide margin.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 30 Jan 2006, 07:12

Briggs was champion.

As for Hart I think he was champion too. Jeffires retired and the sport couldn't just end. Didn't he then name the 2 challengers to fight for the title??? I'm not sure but if this indeed did happen I'd rather the champ nominate the #1 and #2 contenders than some Alpha degenerate.

Was Shannon Briggs legitimately THE Heavyweight Champion?

Was Shannon Briggs legitimately THE Heavyweight Champion Of The World?

Was Shannon Briggs legitimately THE Heavyweight Champion?

re

re

re

Legitimate title

re