Cojimar 1946
Super Welterweight
Posts: 1755 Joined: 01 Mar 2015, 05:00
Post
by Cojimar 1946 Yesterday, 21:32
SteveO wrote: ↑ Yesterday, 14:25 Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑ 28 Aug 2026, 19:07
Most people didn't regard Briggs as champ though. His claim was ignored by the general public.
Doesn't matter. Like it or not Briggs was the lineal champion.
Which the majority of boxing fans found totally irrelevant myself included. Holyfield was considered the champ and the guy to beat.
Briggs wasn't even a top 10 heavyweight which makes it even sillier
gilgamesh
Cruiserweight
Posts: 47201 Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 16:21
Post
by gilgamesh Yesterday, 22:23
Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑ Yesterday, 21:32 SteveO wrote: ↑ Yesterday, 14:25 Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑ 28 Aug 2026, 19:07
Most people didn't regard Briggs as champ though. His claim was ignored by the general public.
Doesn't matter. Like it or not Briggs was the lineal champion.
Which the majority of boxing fans found totally irrelevant myself included. Holyfield was considered the champ and the guy to beat.
Briggs wasn't even a top 10 heavyweight which makes it even sillier
So what is the point of this whole side tangent we've gotten off into again?
Cojimar 1946
Super Welterweight
Posts: 1755 Joined: 01 Mar 2015, 05:00
Post
by Cojimar 1946 Today, 01:02
gilgamesh wrote: ↑ Yesterday, 22:23 Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑ Yesterday, 21:32 SteveO wrote: ↑ Yesterday, 14:25
Doesn't matter. Like it or not Briggs was the lineal champion.
Which the majority of boxing fans found totally irrelevant myself included. Holyfield was considered the champ and the guy to beat.
Briggs wasn't even a top 10 heavyweight which makes it even sillier
So what is the point of this whole side tangent we've gotten off into again?
That lineage isn't required to be considered the real champ by the majority of boxing fans.
You don't get to dismiss someone like Thomas because you don't consider them lineal.
gilgamesh
Cruiserweight
Posts: 47201 Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 16:21
Post
by gilgamesh Today, 01:15
Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑ Today, 01:02 gilgamesh wrote: ↑ Yesterday, 22:23 Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑ Yesterday, 21:32
Which the majority of boxing fans found totally irrelevant myself included. Holyfield was considered the champ and the guy to beat.
Briggs wasn't even a top 10 heavyweight which makes it even sillier
So what is the point of this whole side tangent we've gotten off into again?
That lineage isn't required to be considered the real champ by the majority of boxing fans.
You don't get to dismiss someone like Thomas because you don't consider them lineal.
I don't dismiss him. I consider him a Heavyweight Titlist and a good, but not great fighter.
There's a World of difference between "Dismissing" Pinklon Thomas and considering him an equal to Larry Holmes.
Cojimar 1946
Super Welterweight
Posts: 1755 Joined: 01 Mar 2015, 05:00
Post
by Cojimar 1946 32 minutes ago
When Thomas was at his best Holmes was past his prime and blatantly ducking the top fighters in search of easier opponents.
gilgamesh
Cruiserweight
Posts: 47201 Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 16:21
Post
by gilgamesh 1 minute ago
Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑ 32 minutes ago
When Thomas was at his best Holmes was past his prime and blatantly ducking the top fighters in search of easier opponents.
So yes it's perfectly reasonable to put him ahead of that version of Holmes
Based on having beaten guys that already lost to Holmes first. Gotcha.
Not to mention the Dozen+ other title defenses Holmes had including one over the man that took Pinklon's title.
