Who Was the Worst Heavyweight World Champion in Your View?

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

Worst lineal champ would be leon. Id take shannon briggs over leon

[Controversial]

Leon was talented, his problem was he wasn’t the biggest guy and after beating a well past it Ali he went off the rails in a big way. If the CW division was around and he was dedicated to the sport I’m sure he would’ve done more.

[keithmoonhangover]

Leon Spinks isn't "the worst" mainly because the guy he beat for the title was Muhammad Ali, but honestly there's very few Champions I could see Leon Spinks beating either.

Charles Martin or Bruce Seldon would possibly beat Leon.

I think the Leon from the first fight would beat Seldon.

[hhaehre]

For my money, it's Leon. Sure he beat Ali, but Ali was running on fumes and even managed to win the rematch with almost nothing left. Outside of Ali, what did Leon ever do? Mercado was his only other decent win, and whenever he faced good fighters he didn't just lose, he was usually crushed. I never saw the great talent either, a fairly crude swarmer with a poor defence, who for the most part didn't bother to train.

[Bobbyptsd]

Trevor Bryan, as far as beltholders go.

If we are going with guys who could be considered "the" lineal champion at any point, out of them I'd say Shannon Briggs.

[Ambling Alp II]

Yeah, Briggs would have to be one of the worst of the lineal champions.

[goose 5]

I still want to know if most of Carnera's wins were fixed.

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

Yeah, Briggs would have to be one of the worst of the lineal champions.

Id take briggs to ko spinks

[hhaehre]

Yeah, Briggs would have to be one of the worst of the lineal champions.

Id take briggs to ko spinks

Me too, and in the first round. It would probably look like the Coetzee fight.

[Ambling Alp II]

In that fight, maybe. The Spinks from the first Ali fight would have beat Briggs.

[Beltane]

"The Harder They Fall" (1956), still one of the great boxing movies and film legend Humphrey Bogart's last picture, was based directly on the novel of the same name by Budd Schulberg.

Schulberg's book is allegedly a fictionalized take on the career of real-life prize fighter Primo Carnera. The film's plot has boxing promoter Nick Benko recruiting Toro Moreno, a towering Argentine. Despite Toro's lack of fighting ability, Nick plans to use his size as a gimmick to draw fans to his fights. Unbeknownst to Toro and his manager, Luís Agrandi, all of his fights are fixed to make the public believe that he is a talented boxer.

Carnera himself sued Columbia Pictures, saying the movie was based on him and didn't put him in a very good light, but he lost the suit. So, it is pretty obvious that some of Carnera's bouts were on the nose.

[Ambling Alp II]

The movie actually was pretty good, if not an a entirely accurate portrayal of Carnera. to be fair, all the names of fighters in the film were not real names. Though the real Max Baer did actually act in the movie.

Some of his early opponents dd throw the fight. Of course, that doesn't mean he would not have won anyway. If people actually watch him on video, they would see that he wasn't that bad. Certainly not the worst heavyweight champion, even if we don't count the WBS title holders.

[gilgamesh]

In that fight, maybe. The Spinks from the first Ali fight would have beat Briggs.

I don't think so. The Spinks from the Ali fight wasn't anything special. Ali was just that NOT special that he could lose to that guy.

Buster Douglas against Mike Tyson was the best version of himself we'd ever see. That's probably true of Leon in the 1st Ali fight as well, but even so, there's nothing particularly impressive about that fighter. He's just a gutsy guy who's gonna throw a lot of punches. Briggs would always be too strong for Spinks, and he'd never have to look for him.

[Ambling Alp II]

Well i thought Spinks looked pretty good. Not great, but good. Obviously, Ali was terrible. But Spinks was aggressive and, accurate.

I just get Briggs at all. He is supposed to be strong and a hard puncher. I never saw any evidence of that at all. Where is this power?
Remember when they were hyping him up on HBO and they had 3 supposedly promising heavyweights. He was supposed to be one of them.
Gets knocked down by somebody named Darroll Wilson and wouldn't get up even though it looked like he could have. He was awful

He doesn't have one win that means anything. he looked terrible against foreman and certainly should not have got the decision.

I guess I don't see one fight that Briggs had where I would say that he was a good fighter. Not one.

[gilgamesh]

He's undoubtedly a hard puncher. Add to the fact that he'd have about 5 inches of height, and about 50 to 60 pounds on Leon, and he becomes that much more difficult.

I don't see any way that Leon wouldn't get blasted out by Briggs within 3 rounds.

Briggs has more wins than Leon Spinks has total fights.

[JC]

Putting Joshua on the list is silly, IMO.

He’s a flawed fighter, sure, but you’re not looking at him thinking ‘how the hell did that guy ever win a belt’.

[Ambling Alp II]

He's undoubtedly a hard puncher. Add to the fact that he'd have about 5 inches of height, and about 50 to 60 pounds on Leon, and he becomes that much more difficult.

I don't see any way that Leon wouldn't get blasted out by Briggs within 3 rounds.

Briggs has more wins than Leon Spinks has total fights.

Why is he "undoubtedly" a hard puncher? He didn't stop one decent fighter in his entire career. (Not counting a way, way past his time Mercer.)

No, the stupid 50-to-60-pound weight 'advantage" doesn't count. We aren't doing that BS anymore. The scale and the tape measure doesn't win fights.

Briggs looked lethargic in a lot of his fights.
Obviously, Spinks' career fell apart. But the Spinks that beat Ali would have beaten Briggs.

[gilgamesh]

He's undoubtedly a hard puncher. Add to the fact that he'd have about 5 inches of height, and about 50 to 60 pounds on Leon, and he becomes that much more difficult.

I don't see any way that Leon wouldn't get blasted out by Briggs within 3 rounds.

Briggs has more wins than Leon Spinks has total fights.

Why is he "undoubtedly" a hard puncher? He didn't stop one decent fighter in his entire career. (Not counting a way, way past his time Mercer.)

No, the stupid 50-to-60-pound weight 'advantage" doesn't count. We aren't doing that BS anymore. The scale and the tape measure doesn't win fights.

Briggs looked lethargic in a lot of his fights.
Obviously, Spinks' career fell apart. But the Spinks that beat Ali would have beaten Briggs.

I disagree. The scale doesn't win fights you're right, but for the smaller man to beat the bigger man he has to be significantly more skilled. Spinks isn't significantly more skilled. He's probably not "more skilled" at all. That's why he lost more than twice as often as Briggs.

Spinks also once lost to a guy with a 2-34-1 record, then lost to a guy making his debut 3 fights later. He was 40 and 42 years respectively in those fights.

Briggs is 9-0 with 9 KO's following his 40th birthday against all fighters with Winning records. He has 53 KO's.

Spinks has 46 fights total, and he lost 17 of 'em. Many of the guys that beat him have records worse than people than Briggs beat.

[Ambling Alp II]

No, the smaller man does not necessarily have to be significantly more skilled. If a fighter is too heavy (as Briggs was for much of his career) it is he who has the disadvantage. He is likely to have to fight at a slow pace and is trouble against an opponent who fights at a faster pace. He is also slower, easier to hit and unable to follow up on punches.

Spinks could fight at a much faster pace than Briggs, which is a key advantage.

We have to look at what skills the fighters have. Also, how fast he is, not how fast he is for a 200 pounder or a 250 pounder. not how much power he has for a 200 pounder or for a 250 pounder.

Not saying at all that Spinks was a great fighter. but for a short period of time, he was a good one. Even after the Ali fights, he looked decent against Mercado and Evangelista.
That Spinks lost more fights than Briggs is irrelevant when rating them a their best. Spinks had drug problems and other personal problems that he couldn't deal with it and it hurt his career. And that's on him.
But at his best, he would have beaten Briggs. Briggs had to have corrupt judges give a decision against an ancient Foreman. Spinks earned the decision against Ali (albeit it a bad version of Ali.)

If you just watch Spinks performance against Ali, and just Briggs against Foreman, you have to come to the conclusion that Spinks was better and would have won.

[gilgamesh]

No the smaller man does not necessarily have to be significantly more skilled. If a fighter is too heavy (as Briggs was for much of his career) it is he who has the disadvantage. He is likely to have to fight at a slow pace and is trouble against an opponent who fights at a faster pace. He is also slower, easier to hit and unable to follow up on punches.

Spinks could fight at a much faster pace than Briggs, which would be a key advantage.

We have to look at what skills the fighters have. Also, how fast he is, not how fast he is for a 200 pounder or a 250 pounder. not how much power he has for a 200 pounder or for a 250 pounder.

Not saying at all that Spinks was a great fighter. but for a short period of time, he was a good one. Even after the Ali fights, he looked decent against Mercado and Evangelista.
That Spinks lost more fights than Briggs is irrelevant when rating them a their best. Spinks had drug problems and other personal problems that he couldn't deal with itand it hurt his career. And that's on him.
But at his best, he would have beaten Briggs. Briggs had to have corrupt judges give a decision against an ancient Foreman. Spinks earned the decision against Ali (albeit it a bad version of Ali.)

If you just watch Spinks performance against Ali, and just Briggs against Foreman, you have to come to the conclusion that Spinks was better and would have won.

I've watched both of those fights, and I haven't come to that conclusion.

I agree with you though that Briggs didn't deserve the decision against Foreman. However in his very next fight. The Briggs that LOST to Lennox Lewis would have undoubtedly knocked out Leon Spinks.

I'd even agree with you that if their fight ever gets past the 3rd round then Briggs probably has trouble keeping pace with Spinks.

I just can't ever see it going past 3 rounds.

[Flump]

If we're talking beltholders, Charles Martin has to be in the conversation. Won his on a freak injury, against a bloke who wasn't remotely world class. Then lost it by folding like a deckchair against Joshua.

[keithmoonhangover]

Tommy Morrison is definitely in with a shout here. If we are counting WBO. I was going to suggest Michel Bentt, but he actually beat Morrison emphatically.

[Riddick Bowie]

I disagree. The scale doesn't win fights you're right, but for the smaller man to beat the bigger man he has to be significantly more skilled. Spinks isn't significantly more skilled. He's probably not "more skilled" at all. That's why he lost more than twice as often as Briggs.

Spinks also once lost to a guy with a 2-34-1 record, then lost to a guy making his debut 3 fights later. He was 40 and 42 years respectively in those fights.

Briggs is 9-0 with 9 KO's following his 40th birthday against all fighters with Winning records. He has 53 KO's.

Spinks has 46 fights total, and he lost 17 of 'em. Many of the guys that beat him have records worse than people than Briggs beat.

When deciding who would win a fight we're talking best versus best, so whatever Leon Spinks did when he was washed up -- which in this case was fighting on for years, racking up losses and getting brain damage -- doesn't have any bearing on who would win on the night.

Do you really think Briggs' longevity (at a low level) is due to skills? In his prime he fought almost exclusively cans he generally blew out easily, bar Darrol Wilson and Sedreck Fields both of whom beat him. The only Name opponents he met in all that time were Lennox, Jameel McCline and 50 year old Foreman, at least two of whom beat him.

Briggs was well managed, Spinks was horribly managed. Briggs liked the gym, at least for weight lifting, Spinks liked crack dens. I wouldn't rule out Briggs stopping him in 1, even though Briggs is no Coetzee, but if the switched on Spinks of the first Ali fight makes it past 1 he certainly outlasts Briggs, who struggled with the fitness of a fat 50 year old Foreman. Can anyone imagine Shannon Briggs hearing the final bell in a gruelling 15 rounder?

I appreciate you've committed yourself to your opinion and now must stick with it, but your rationale is embarrassingly naive and facile, especially for someone who has been on Boxrec for years and must have read a thousand good points. James Toney and Bernard Hopkins outlasted Roy Jones; didn't much help them when they fought him. Briggs' friend George Foreman outlasted Ali; didn't much help him in the Jungle. On and on.

[gilgamesh]

I'd pick Briggs to win a head to head with Spinks more often than not, but your other points about Briggs' failings are indeed fair.

[Cap]

Briggs or Spinks? What a choice. ( I always wondered if Ali picked Spinks instead of Norton because he knew in a rematch he could whip Leon.)

Briggs? The closest he got to being world champion was losing to Lennox Lewis.