Is Lennox right?

[jamamb]

these days im not sure its any less credible then the other 3. the quality of champ has been decent enough in comparison and when wbo champs are referred to as world champs its generally not called out for being bogus. and the wbo doesnt have loads of vacanies (or secondary world belts) or seek out fighters like the ibo does and they dont stoop as low for champs

ppl may rate it lower prestige wise because they remember it in its earlier days, but imo now its in the same league as the others for legitimacy

has loma not been a legit belt holder? because hes only won the wbo.

[Terry Dooley]

Then there is of course Wladimir Klitchsko - I've not heard a single boxing writer question his run of world title fights / defences - yet a good portion of this was as WBO champion at the same time as Lennox and Holyfield were duking it out.

Lewis had already unified the titles prior to Wlad winning it so it wasn't at the same time (he held the EBI title when Lewis beat Holyfield), his defences weren't great, and he wasn't considered a credible holder—it was all about Lewis during this period. Wlad's 2000-03 run was actually very questionable and ended when he got chinned by Sanders, which happened just a few months before Lewis stopped his brother in a genuine title defence.

Lewis is 100% correct.

[stujones]

Then there is of course Wladimir Klitchsko - I've not heard a single boxing writer question his run of world title fights / defences - yet a good portion of this was as WBO champion at the same time as Lennox and Holyfield were duking it out.

Lewis had already unified the titles prior to Wlad winning it so it wasn't at the same time (he held the EBI title when Lewis beat Holyfield), his defences weren't great, and he wasn't considered a credible holder—it was all about Lewis during this period. Wlad's 2000-03 run was actually very questionable and ended when he got chinned by Sanders, which happened just a few months before Lewis stopped his brother in a genuine title defence.

Lewis is 100% correct.

My point was when Tyson Fury - and allegedly prior and SkySports were harping on about the number of world title defenses Wlad had made and how he is closing in on Louis' record - no one (as far as I can remember) questioned it... Yet this counted his WBO reign of the early 2000's when Lewis was WBC, IBF and IBO champion.

I'm not saying Lewis was not the unversally recognised world champion between 1999 and 2004 when he retired - BUT how can he be 100% correct when in 1999 the IBO recognised Brian Neilson as the world champion and he was making defenses of his title on showcased on Danish TV (no disrespect intended) - Lewis was stating the IBO was more recognised than the WBO - no it wasn't.... can anyone name another IBO champion at around that period? Naz beat Manuel Calvo for it after LOSING to Barrera. Their Middleweight champion was Mpush Makambi, the british conquerer. Brian Magee was the Super Middle champion.

[Boxing Writer]

yeah i think youre right, it was a british belt of sorts. then you had the likes of nas and calzaghe give it some more legitamcy. weve had lomachenko, vlad, kovalev lately holding it and giving it some weight.
its somewhat sought after, but still a paper belt like all the rest really.

It was actually held by De la Hoya, Barrera, Hamed, Calzaghe, Eubank Sr. and great Ricardo Lopez. Not a bad list of champions. But at HW division all the best fighters (Bowe, Moorer, Mercer) that held that title until Lewis - Holyfield fights, relinquished it quickly, so WBO title at the heavyweight division wasn't on the same level as WBC/WBA/IBF in 1999.

[Boxing Writer]

Anybody who says the WBO was as highly regarded as the WBC/WBA/IBF heavyweight title are obviously too young to know/remember.

WBO was most definitely 2nd tier ... seen something as a European world title belt; and was the IBO even around back then?

Yes it was and if I am not mistaken they just gave it to Lewis/Holyfield winner - Brian Neilson was the champion and they just stipped him to give it to Lewis after he beat Holyfield.... so no wonder Lennox, who never held the WBO title, felt it was more prestigious - just a tad bias.

Larry Holmes got a bit of attention fighting Neilson for the IBO belt - he was making comparison with the IBF just more than 10 years previous. Remember most experts thought Holmes beat Neilson (but didn't get the decision) - I didn't see that fight.

Holmes won that fight 7 rounds to 4 on my card (there arre only 11 of 12 rounds available on youtube)

[Boxing Writer]

Then there is of course Wladimir Klitchsko - I've not heard a single boxing writer question his run of world title fights / defences - yet a good portion of this was as WBO champion at the same time as Lennox and Holyfield were duking it out.

Lewis had already unified the titles prior to Wlad winning it so it wasn't at the same time (he held the EBI title when Lewis beat Holyfield), his defences weren't great, and he wasn't considered a credible holder—it was all about Lewis during this period. Wlad's 2000-03 run was actually very questionable and ended when he got chinned by Sanders, which happened just a few months before Lewis stopped his brother in a genuine title defence.

Lewis is 100% correct.

But it wasn't like there were only two champions (he and Lewis) at the HW division during Wlad's WBO reign in 2000-2003. Lewis relinquished WBA title and then IBF title. At one point of time Wlad was considered the best of the champions, when other titles were held by Ruiz and Rahman. At the time when Wlad lost to Sanders, Lewis held only WBC title, IBF was held by Chris Byrd, WBA was held by Roy Jones Jr.

[Terry Dooley]

Then there is of course Wladimir Klitchsko - I've not heard a single boxing writer question his run of world title fights / defences - yet a good portion of this was as WBO champion at the same time as Lennox and Holyfield were duking it out.

Lewis had already unified the titles prior to Wlad winning it so it wasn't at the same time (he held the EBI title when Lewis beat Holyfield), his defences weren't great, and he wasn't considered a credible holder—it was all about Lewis during this period. Wlad's 2000-03 run was actually very questionable and ended when he got chinned by Sanders, which happened just a few months before Lewis stopped his brother in a genuine title defence.

Lewis is 100% correct.

My point was when Tyson Fury - and allegedly prior and SkySports were harping on about the number of world title defenses Wlad had made and how he is closing in on Louis' record - no one (as far as I can remember) questioned it... Yet this counted his WBO reign of the early 2000's when Lewis was WBC, IBF and IBO champion.

I'm not saying Lewis was not the unversally recognised world champion between 1999 and 2004 when he retired - BUT how can he be 100% correct when in 1999 the IBO recognised Brian Neilson as the world champion and he was making defenses of his title on showcased on Danish TV (no disrespect intended) - Lewis was stating the IBO was more recognised than the WBO - no it wasn't.... can anyone name another IBO champion at around that period? Naz beat Manuel Calvo for it after LOSING to Barrera. Their Middleweight champion was Mpush Makambi, the british conquerer. Brian Magee was the Super Middle champion.

Lewis has been misunderstood, he isn't putting the IBO above the WBO, he's quite rightly pointing out that the WBO meant nothing. Putting aside Nielsen's IBO reign of terror (and he didn't defend the IBO title in 1999 BTW) and sticking to the WBO, in line with your original post, you will see that the title was totally without credit at heavyweight at that time.

Holyfield refused to fight for it against Bowe in case it harmed his ratings with the three major belts, Bowe agreed to this to make the fight. Akinwande gave it up in order to make a fight against Lewis. It was not a legitimate title and other fighters in other divisions were generally accepted as undisputed without holding it. Showtime are talking complete and utter nonsense to further hype up a potential meeting between Joshua/Parker-Wilder and relying on the ignorance of the general punter in the hope of getting away with it.

As for the point about Sky and the number of defences, I imagine plenty of people discounted the first time Wlad held that title as well as dismissing the idea that he was closing in on Louis as nonsensical.

[Greg Houston]

I always felt during the 90s that the WBO was higher regarded in the lower divisions, especially with Barrera being seen as number one for so long whilst holding it.
With Briggs, I think a lot of people view him as a former world champion for his stint as "lineal" champion after beating Foreman. I'm sure somebody actually had a belt made for that. Looking at his record he also briefly held the IBU belt.

[Boxing Writer]

Lewis had already unified the titles prior to Wlad winning it so it wasn't at the same time (he held the EBI title when Lewis beat Holyfield), his defences weren't great, and he wasn't considered a credible holder—it was all about Lewis during this period. Wlad's 2000-03 run was actually very questionable and ended when he got chinned by Sanders, which happened just a few months before Lewis stopped his brother in a genuine title defence.

Lewis is 100% correct.

My point was when Tyson Fury - and allegedly prior and SkySports were harping on about the number of world title defenses Wlad had made and how he is closing in on Louis' record - no one (as far as I can remember) questioned it... Yet this counted his WBO reign of the early 2000's when Lewis was WBC, IBF and IBO champion.

I'm not saying Lewis was not the unversally recognised world champion between 1999 and 2004 when he retired - BUT how can he be 100% correct when in 1999 the IBO recognised Brian Neilson as the world champion and he was making defenses of his title on showcased on Danish TV (no disrespect intended) - Lewis was stating the IBO was more recognised than the WBO - no it wasn't.... can anyone name another IBO champion at around that period? Naz beat Manuel Calvo for it after LOSING to Barrera. Their Middleweight champion was Mpush Makambi, the british conquerer. Brian Magee was the Super Middle champion.

Lewis has been misunderstood, he isn't putting the IBO above the WBO, he's quite rightly pointing out that the WBO meant nothing. Putting aside Nielsen's IBO reign of terror (and he didn't defend the IBO title in 1999 BTW) and sticking to the WBO, in line with your original post, you will see that the title was totally without credit at heavyweight at that time.

Holyfield refused to fight for it against Bowe in case it harmed his ratings with the three major belts, Bowe agreed to this to make the fight. Akinwande gave it up in order to make a fight against Lewis. It was not a legitimate title and other fighters in other divisions were generally accepted as undisputed without holding it. Showtime are talking complete and utter nonsense to further hype up a potential meeting between Joshua/Parker-Wilder and relying on the ignorance of the general punter in the hope of getting away with it.

As for the point about Sky and the number of defences, I imagine plenty of people discounted the first time Wlad held that title as well as dismissing the idea that he was closing in on Louis as nonsensical.

Even if Wlad defended his title(s) three additional times, he wouldn't break Louis' record, because his defenses (even if you add his WBO title reign) were non-consecutive. He had 23 total defenses (5 of them were defenses of WBO title), but his longest reign consisted of 18 consecutive title defenses which is far from reaching the point were Louis record would be put to any danger. Considering that Wlad fought 2 times per year, he had to defend his title for 4 years more to break Louis' record. It was simply impossible to do in his age.

[stujones]

Didn't Briggs with some version of a belt (not a made up Lineal belt) when he beat Foreman.... wasn't Foreman awarded something like the WBU championship after he gave up all of his "proper" belts during his fights with the likes of Savarese etc... and Briggs won that as opposed to some "lineal" governing body giving him a belt.

Its horses for coarses IMO and what you believe in. American TV Networks had no issues hyping up Foreman as challenging to become the oldest Heavyweight champion when he fought Morrison.

Some people class WBA "ordinary" champions as proper champions (e.g. Manuel Charr) some even go as far and call WBA interim champions as proper champions (e.g. Derry Matthews)... some people class Hasim Rahman as a TWO TIME world champion after being awarded the WBC title out of the ring - personally I'm just about the fighter and opponents as opposed to the belt. Lewis had beaten pretty much all the viable challengers to his title - I cannot DISPUTE that he was Heavyweight champion between 1999 and Rahman. There could possibly (although I do not personally) be some dispute that if a fighter can lose to Rahman then he could lose to the WBO champion and a much better boxer in Klitchsko. For me personally, I am quite comfortable with the notion of a disputed (e.g. two or more) with a viable claim to the title. For me, I call Ken Norton a geniune world champion but I also call Leon Spinks a geniune world champion and call Ali a geniune 3 time world champion. I don't call Manuel Charr a geniune world champion, but if he goes on a reign of terror and starts smashing real viable challengers and Wilder and Joshua go through a change of direction and start only fighting low level opponents then why not start asking if Charr has a legitimate case to be seen as a viable threat and a viable champion. I also think an undisputed champion can lose that claim even if they do not lose in the ring... such as Foreman after Moorer. Struggling with fighters not even ranking in the top 20 whereas Lewis, Tyson and Holyfield were beating up geniune top ten fighters.

Regarding Neilson - I do not believe he was stripped in 1999, so he was still carrying the belt as a champion in 1999 the year Lewis fought Holyfield. Much like Lewis was still carrying the belts in the first 4 months in 2004 despite never fighting in 2004. His record will always say world champion 1999-2004 (with Rahman sandwich).

[leejonesjnr]

Didn't Briggs with some version of a belt (not a made up Lineal belt) when he beat Foreman.... wasn't Foreman awarded something like the WBU championship after he gave up all of his "proper" belts during his fights with the likes of Savarese etc... and Briggs won that as opposed to some "lineal" governing body giving him a belt.

Shannon Briggs was WBO champion.
There isn't such a thing as a lineal governing body by nature of the word and the situation of boxing with more than one champion. Lineal is the tracking of who is the man who beat the man who beat the man

[ILikeBeer]

Lewis didn't hold the WBF or WBU belts at the time, so can't be truly considered to be undisputed.

[oogiebe]

Lewis didn't hold the WBF or WBU belts at the time, so can't be truly considered to be undisputed.

????lol!

[Syntax Error]

Lewis didn't hold the WBF or WBU belts at the time, so can't be truly considered to be undisputed.

True.

On that basis, there probably hasn't been a single 'Undisputed' boxing champion in the last quarter of a century.

[lillywhite14]

Didn't Briggs with some version of a belt (not a made up Lineal belt) when he beat Foreman.... wasn't Foreman awarded something like the WBU championship after he gave up all of his "proper" belts during his fights with the likes of Savarese etc... and Briggs won that as opposed to some "lineal" governing body giving him a belt.

Shannon Briggs was WBO champion.
There isn't such a thing as a lineal governing body by nature of the word and the situation of boxing with more than one champion. Lineal is the tracking of who is the man who beat the man who beat the man

Glad there are some people who realise what this apparent lineal champion is. It did exist but it ended decades and decades ago. Wasn’t the last Lineal champ Gene Tunney? He beat the man who had beat the man who in turn had beat the man and so on...

Difference is , Tunney retired without losing again. Lineage done. Sorry chaps and sorry most of all to Shannon Briggs. It’s his claim to fame ( Fury starting to love it too )

[tonyevs]

Too many on here relying on looking at the record books - which is pretty meaningless on gauging the validity/prestige of the WBO/IBO belts back then ... as said, those who are old enough to remember will know.

I suggest those who think differently read old copies of BN regarding the fights mentioned ... BN made it pretty clear in their analysis back then how they viewed the belts.

[ewenhay]

Showtime are biased on this one. Tyson was a Showtime fighter, Lewis wasn't.

In any case they are still wrong. WBO wasn't a factor back then. In any case 3 was two too many let alone 4 or 5.

[Flump]

Lewis didn't hold the WBF or WBU belts at the time, so can't be truly considered to be undisputed.

That's right. I had a pretty good leather belt at the time too, Lewis didn't have that either, so definitely not undisputed.

[TheGman]

While Lewis never held the WBO belt he did beat Akinwande who held it at the time.

He did but i think akinwande had to relinquish it to challenge for the major straps at the time.

Its like naz fought the wba champ but it wasnt for the belt,naz beat every champion at that time a feit no one had done at that time i think

[Rambo]

Ive always imagined the green one is the best? the black one and the red one are the other good ones, those ones with multicoloured stripes and what have you look rubbish and probably are rubbish

[oogiebe]

Ive always imagined the green one is the best? the black one and the red one are the other good ones, those ones with multicoloured stripes and what have you look rubbish and probably are rubbish

What about the shiny ones!? lol!

[stujones]

While Lewis never held the WBO belt he did beat Akinwande who held it at the time.

He did but i think akinwande had to relinquish it to challenge for the major straps at the time.

Its like naz fought the wba champ but it wasnt for the belt,naz beat every champion at that time a feit no one had done at that time i think

Depends on how leanient you are...Michael Moorer was a former WBO champion who never lost it in the ring...Bowe never lost his WBC, ibf and wba titles in the ring till he lost to holyfield...so you could say Holyfield fought the real wbc wba and ibf belt holder and them fought the real WBO belt holder.

Re Naz it works both ways regarding the politics...yes Vasquez was the Wba champ going into the fight....but luisito espinosa was the long reigning wbc champ who never lost his title in the ring.

[orbtastic]

He lost to Soto, who then lost to Hamed

[leejonesjnr]

Hmmm.
I think it doesn’t matter how you lose it, if you aren’t the champion then you aren’t the champion, in the ring or out.
If a child has a balloon and a bully takes it, does that child still have a balloon?

[orbtastic]

It's more about whether they lost before losing, rather than losing the belt.

However you slice it, Hamed beat the main belt holders. The IBO was not more highly regarded than the WBO title. I think in the end the WBA relented and actually gave Hamed a belt to apologise. There's photos of him with it, alongside all his other belts.