BoxRec

bwu wrote: ↑15 Mar 2021, 21:09

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑14 Mar 2021, 19:23

bwu wrote: ↑12 Mar 2021, 18:45

There’s no argument here that Ali was beyond shot. But that isn’t the issue.

Ali was the undisputed champ in early ‘78. He lost to Leon Spinks. The latter was stripped of the WBC title shortly thereafter. He then lost the WBA and lineal title back to Ali in late ‘78.

While Ali announced his retirement in ‘79, he didn’t lose to anybody in the ring until he was knocked out by Holmes in ‘80. It’s absolutely valid to consider this a passing of the lineal title.

This is literally the first time I’ve heard anyone claim that Holmes wasn’t a lineal champion. Frankly, I doubt that you can point to anyone outside this thread who would deny his claim.

When Ali retired he lost his title. So beating him at that stage in no way gives Holmes lineal status. Ali was also totally shot and likely loses to any top 10 heavyweight. If Ali had fought Cobb for example he likely loses badly.

You can dismiss Ali being totally shot but once he retires he loses his status as champion. That's just how it is.

So that's just how it is. Explain to me how Holmes, who beat Norton in '78 for the WBC title and Weaver in '79, just before the latter won the WBA title, wasn't a lineal champion. I was being conservative in saying that Holmes didn't cinch the claim until he beat Ali.

Rightly or wrongly, the heavyweight division has a long history of disregarding retirement status when it comes to the lineal title. Jim Corbett announced his retirement and the ensuing "lineage" included Pete Maher, Bob Fitzsimmons and Tom Sharkey all claiming the title. However, when Corbett unretired, everyone recognized him as champ until Fitz knocked him out. Jack Johnson, Ezzard Charles and Joe Frazier all had to deal with folks doubting their positions until they beat the comebacking Jim Jeffries, Joe Louis and (ironically) Muhammad Ali.

You're making the mistake of thinking I agree with these points of view. I'm not saying I think Ali was the champ until '80. I'm saying Holmes was a lineal champ and that victory should've sealed it beyond all question. But you go ahead and tell me just how it is and while you're at it, actually identify someone else who doesn't think Holmes was a lineal champ.

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑15 Mar 2021, 15:01 you deserve to celebrate my man, buy yourself a big pizza and enjoy

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑16 Mar 2021, 03:49 that works

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2021, 01:20

bwu wrote: ↑15 Mar 2021, 21:09

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑14 Mar 2021, 19:23

When Ali retired he lost his title. So beating him at that stage in no way gives Holmes lineal status. Ali was also totally shot and likely loses to any top 10 heavyweight. If Ali had fought Cobb for example he likely loses badly.

You can dismiss Ali being totally shot but once he retires he loses his status as champion. That's just how it is.

So that's just how it is. Explain to me how Holmes, who beat Norton in '78 for the WBC title and Weaver in '79, just before the latter won the WBA title, wasn't a lineal champion. I was being conservative in saying that Holmes didn't cinch the claim until he beat Ali.

Rightly or wrongly, the heavyweight division has a long history of disregarding retirement status when it comes to the lineal title. Jim Corbett announced his retirement and the ensuing "lineage" included Pete Maher, Bob Fitzsimmons and Tom Sharkey all claiming the title. However, when Corbett unretired, everyone recognized him as champ until Fitz knocked him out. Jack Johnson, Ezzard Charles and Joe Frazier all had to deal with folks doubting their positions until they beat the comebacking Jim Jeffries, Joe Louis and (ironically) Muhammad Ali.

You're making the mistake of thinking I agree with these points of view. I'm not saying I think Ali was the champ until '80. I'm saying Holmes was a lineal champ and that victory should've sealed it beyond all question. But you go ahead and tell me just how it is and while you're at it, actually identify someone else who doesn't think Holmes was a lineal champ.

Lineal implies undisputed and the fact that Holmes didn't dethrone a reigning champion and that throughout the entirety of his reign there were other fighters claiming the status of champion initially one and later two is pretty self explanatory I think.

As far as Holmes beating Weaver prior to beating Tate that doesn't give him lineal status based on what Weaver later did. At the time Weaver fought Holmes he wasn't champion. History is full of guys beating people who went on to become champions.

Oleg Maskaev is not a lineal champion despite beating Rahman who went on to beat Lewis
Tommy Morrison is not a lineal champion despite beating Foreman who went on to beat Moorer
Tony Tucker is not a lineal champion despite beating Buster Douglas who went on to beat Mike Tyson etc

bwu wrote: ↑17 Mar 2021, 11:28

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2021, 01:20

bwu wrote: ↑15 Mar 2021, 21:09

So that's just how it is. Explain to me how Holmes, who beat Norton in '78 for the WBC title and Weaver in '79, just before the latter won the WBA title, wasn't a lineal champion. I was being conservative in saying that Holmes didn't cinch the claim until he beat Ali.

Rightly or wrongly, the heavyweight division has a long history of disregarding retirement status when it comes to the lineal title. Jim Corbett announced his retirement and the ensuing "lineage" included Pete Maher, Bob Fitzsimmons and Tom Sharkey all claiming the title. However, when Corbett unretired, everyone recognized him as champ until Fitz knocked him out. Jack Johnson, Ezzard Charles and Joe Frazier all had to deal with folks doubting their positions until they beat the comebacking Jim Jeffries, Joe Louis and (ironically) Muhammad Ali.

You're making the mistake of thinking I agree with these points of view. I'm not saying I think Ali was the champ until '80. I'm saying Holmes was a lineal champ and that victory should've sealed it beyond all question. But you go ahead and tell me just how it is and while you're at it, actually identify someone else who doesn't think Holmes was a lineal champ.

Lineal implies undisputed and the fact that Holmes didn't dethrone a reigning champion and that throughout the entirety of his reign there were other fighters claiming the status of champion initially one and later two is pretty self explanatory I think.

As far as Holmes beating Weaver prior to beating Tate that doesn't give him lineal status based on what Weaver later did. At the time Weaver fought Holmes he wasn't champion. History is full of guys beating people who went on to become champions.

Oleg Maskaev is not a lineal champion despite beating Rahman who went on to beat Lewis
Tommy Morrison is not a lineal champion despite beating Foreman who went on to beat Moorer
Tony Tucker is not a lineal champion despite beating Buster Douglas who went on to beat Mike Tyson etc

These are straw man arguments. First, lineal doesn't imply undisputed. Half the reason people rely on lineal titles is because the sanctioning organizations have crowded the field and sometimes even their unified titles don't have value.

If dethroning a reigning champion is a factor and, as you have argued, retirement terminates the claim, that means the lineal heavyweight championship died out when Jim Jeffries stepped out of the sport for the first time 115 years ago.

When Holmes beat Weaver in the WBC match, there were only two recognized sanctioning bodies and it was less than a year before the latter took the WBA version. Acting as if it was of no relevance is short sighted.

The Maskaev/Morrison/Tucker examples are not comparable. At the time of the bouts you mentioned, none of the winners held a title that had even the veneer of a genuine championship. Unlike Holmes, none of them had beaten the man who could at least arguably be viewed as the top of the division (Norton, in his case). None of the losing fighters ended up holding belts at the same time as their conquerors.

With all due respect, you've yet to point to a single source that supports your theory. In contrast, the Ring Magazine, CBZ, SI, Boxing Scene and this very site all recognize Holmes as a lineal champion. Considering what boxers put themselves through for our interest and entertainment, we shouldn't be denying them well earned credit.

bwu wrote: ↑19 Mar 2021, 20:54Owen Moran?

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑19 Mar 2021, 14:20

bwu wrote: ↑17 Mar 2021, 11:28

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2021, 01:20

Lineal implies undisputed and the fact that Holmes didn't dethrone a reigning champion and that throughout the entirety of his reign there were other fighters claiming the status of champion initially one and later two is pretty self explanatory I think.

As far as Holmes beating Weaver prior to beating Tate that doesn't give him lineal status based on what Weaver later did. At the time Weaver fought Holmes he wasn't champion. History is full of guys beating people who went on to become champions.

Oleg Maskaev is not a lineal champion despite beating Rahman who went on to beat Lewis
Tommy Morrison is not a lineal champion despite beating Foreman who went on to beat Moorer
Tony Tucker is not a lineal champion despite beating Buster Douglas who went on to beat Mike Tyson etc

These are straw man arguments. First, lineal doesn't imply undisputed. Half the reason people rely on lineal titles is because the sanctioning organizations have crowded the field and sometimes even their unified titles don't have value.

If dethroning a reigning champion is a factor and, as you have argued, retirement terminates the claim, that means the lineal heavyweight championship died out when Jim Jeffries stepped out of the sport for the first time 115 years ago.

When Holmes beat Weaver in the WBC match, there were only two recognized sanctioning bodies and it was less than a year before the latter took the WBA version. Acting as if it was of no relevance is short sighted.

The Maskaev/Morrison/Tucker examples are not comparable. At the time of the bouts you mentioned, none of the winners held a title that had even the veneer of a genuine championship. Unlike Holmes, none of them had beaten the man who could at least arguably be viewed as the top of the division (Norton, in his case). None of the losing fighters ended up holding belts at the same time as their conquerors.

With all due respect, you've yet to point to a single source that supports your theory. In contrast, the Ring Magazine, CBZ, SI, Boxing Scene and this very site all recognize Holmes as a lineal champion. Considering what boxers put themselves through for our interest and entertainment, we shouldn't be denying them well earned credit.

Fighters can establish themselves via other methods than dethroning a reigning lineal champ. Like fighting the other top guy in the division. However, at the time Holmes and Norton fought Leon Spinks was the recognized lineal champ who then lost to Ali who subsequently retired. At that stage Holmes could establish himself as lineal via unification. Beating Weaver who went on to become co-beltholder helps his case as the best but it doesn't establish lineage based on what Weaver did subsequently. If they have a rematch and Holmes loses that pretty much blows up the whole argument you are trying to make.

Larry Holmes was at least for a brief time almost certainly the best overall heavyweight in the world and if he fought in an era with only one title where fighters fought the best he would have probably been lineal champion. But that's true of a lot of other fighters. Sam Langford and Harry Wills would have almost certainly been lineal champions if they had received title shots. Do you feel Langford and Wills should be regarded as lineal champs because based on the criteria used for Holmes they probably would qualify.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑22 Mar 2021, 15:08

elmersalsa wrote: ↑26 Mar 2021, 09:34 At #22, we got the dreadful and fearsome lightweight contender, Lew Tendler!

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑26 Mar 2021, 12:47 I wonder if gibbons will make the cut? Honestly, not getting into the order, Jackson is the only undeserving guy.