BoxRec

With respect to Reggie Diggs, who has this thread going in Current Scene.

This shouldnt be a case where you edit a mans record just because you scored a bout which was totally debatable the other way than the judges. It should change for clear, poor calls.

Juan Manuel Marquez...

Is: 54-6-1
Should Be: 56-5-0

He won those fights with John & Pacquiao (2011), and lost the first Pacquiao fight.

Muhammad Ali...

Is: 56-5-0
Should Be: 54-7-0

Plain losses to Young & Norton (1976).

Oscar De La Hoya...

Is: 39-6-0
Should Be: 40-5-0

Clearly deserved the nod against Trinidad & Mosley (2003), but lost to Sturm. Very close calls against Whitaker & Quartey which were not robberies.

Evander Holyfield...

Is: 42-10-2
Should Be: 42-12-0

Lost his draws with Lewis & Ruiz.

Pernell Whitaker...

Is: 40-4-1
Should Be: 42-3-0

Plainly beat Ramirez (I) & Chavez. Did not clearly lose a match until Trinidad, in his penultimate career fight (though I did have him marginally edged out against De La Hoya).

"Is: 42-10-2
Should Be: 42-12-0

Lost his draws with Lewis & Ruiz."

But won the fights he lost to them (and I think he won the Ruiz draw as well).

Would you really say Holyfield won the rematch with Lewis to the point where he was robbed?

I cant see that.

I never said he was robbed. I just said I felt he won. I dont really think you can say Lewis was "ROBBED" in their first fight either.

klompton wrote:I never said he was robbed. I just said I felt he won. I dont really think you can say Lewis was "ROBBED" in their first fight either.

Holyfield was as "clear" a winner in the second as Lewis was in the first, so you tell me whats a robbery? When you go in to the biggest fight of your life with every advantage and then hang back and timidly jab like you are afraid of the smaller, older man can you really complain when you dont win his title? Hardly. Those two fights a case of trying to make a right by wrong Holyfield. At least Lewis didnt have an "L" on his record after the first fight. Lewis was handed that title without actually having to take it from a champion just like he was the first two times he was given a belt. Its fascinating that for how highly Lewis is regarded by some that the only time he ever legitimately defeated a sitting champion was when he knocked out Rahman and we all know how that scrub got a belt...

I thought the draw was a poor decision but not utterly horrific. I scored Evander vs Lewis I 7-5 for Lewis. It wasn't CLOSE to being the "worst decision in history" people make it out to be. People forget the end decision was a DRAW and not a W for Holyfield (who definitely didn't win the fight). A draw is a very poor scorecard for that fight but IMO is within the outer fringes of possibility. Many close rounds in that fight when neither fighter did much of anything effective.

Lewis beat Briggs for the real title. Holyfield was the one challenging Lewis --- and how in Gods name did Lewis win anything less than eight rounds (MINIMUM) in their initial bout?

Lewis wasnt challenging Holyfield to be the champ in 1999, it was the other way around.

Lol! Yeah foreman was champ... paying off sanctioning bodies to get awful fighters ranked so foreman could beat them and keep that embarrassment of a gravy train rolling. Then then when foreman cant beat those crappy fighters they fix the decision. Yeah. As much of a mockery as foreman made of the title ill take holyfields claim over lewis via briggs via foreman . And frankly while we are on the subject holyfield's "loss" to moorer should be a "w" as should schulz loss to foreman.

Now there's a bad decision lineage???

No, you beat the guy who is regarded as the champ and get the belt. Then you might fight the guy who is warranted a shot due to a dodgy previous decision, to add legitimacy to your Title claim.

And how many people regard Foreman as the true champion?? Very few. He made a joke and circus of the title which was well known and well documented at the time.

Yeah, its ridiculous. Foreman pays to have schulz rated, gets totally outboxed by him, wins a complete robbery of a gift decision, then refuses to give the shitty fighter he PAID TO GET RANKED IN THE FIRST PLACE a rematch, gets his title stripped, and finally loses his "linear title" (which in this case laughably meant less than an ABC belt) to Shannon F-ing Briggs of all people and thats the pedestal of championship calibre you want Lewis' claim resting on?

The idea that a champion can never be stripped for anything and should remain champion in perpetuity is a joke. Clearly if a guy is ducking the best fighters (which Foreman freely admitted he was), is paying off officials to get poor quality (i.e. beatable) fighters ranked, cant beat them without robbery decisions, and refuses mandated rematches when those robbery decisions are handed down then Im sorry but its time to strip the guy and bring him and his deluded fans back to reality.

JDC wrote:Now there's a bad decision lineage???

No, you beat the guy who is regarded as the champ and get the belt. Then you might fight the guy who is warranted a shot due to a dodgy previous decision, to add legitimacy to your Title claim.

Briggs didn't have any belt, and while on the topic of bad decisions, Briggs didn't even deserve the W vs Foreman! But everyone and their mother saw that Schultz beat Foreman . .than Moorer beats Schultz, then Moorer gets KO'd by Evander. Holyfield was the more legit champion.

dempseyfire wrote:

JDC wrote:Now there's a bad decision lineage???

No, you beat the guy who is regarded as the champ and get the belt. Then you might fight the guy who is warranted a shot due to a dodgy previous decision, to add legitimacy to your Title claim.

Briggs didn't have any belt, and while on the topic of bad decisions, Briggs didn't even deserve the W vs Foreman! But everyone and their mother saw that Schultz beat Foreman . .than Moorer beats Schultz, then Moorer gets KO'd by Evander. Holyfield was the more legit champion.

ding ding ding we have a winnah

klompton wrote:Lol! Yeah foreman was champ... paying off sanctioning bodies to get awful fighters ranked so foreman could beat them and keep that embarrassment of a gravy train rolling. Then then when foreman cant beat those crappy fighters they fix the decision. Yeah. As much of a mockery as foreman made of the title ill take holyfields claim over lewis via briggs via foreman . And frankly while we are on the subject holyfield's "loss" to moorer should be a "w" as should schulz loss to foreman.

LOL. Why do you suppose Lewis fought Briggs in the first place? It was purely because Briggs was the linear champ. Why on Earth would Lewis bother with him otherwise!?

If we're going to call Moorer's win against Holyfield a gift, Ive got news for you --- so was Holyfield's win against Bowe!

I prefer to look at it like this...Holyfield got a marginal call in his favour against Bowe, and a marginal call against versus Moorer. I accept both outcomes...but to ignore one and complain about the other? I dont think so.

Really? Thats the only reason Lewis fought Briggs? Im curious then, why did he fight that phenom Zeljko Mavrovic? Was it ONLY because he wanted to be EBU champ? LOL, as if Lewis ONLY ever fought very important bouts...

I think the fact that you "prefer" certain results is the key factor here.

That fails to answer why Lewis would bother with Briggs.

It amuses me you cite Foremans corruption as grounds to diminish his claim...yet Holyfield won his title from where? From Tyson, and how did that even become possible? Because King PAID to catapault Tyson toward the belt immediately upon his prison release. LOL. Talk about selective judgement.

The fact Foreman, "lost," to Schulz also tickles me. Take a look at how many of us regard Norton to have beaten Ali for the title in 76 --- do you think we then follow Norton in his next bout, not Ali, as the linear champ?

klompton wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:

JDC wrote:Now there's a bad decision lineage???

No, you beat the guy who is regarded as the champ and get the belt. Then you might fight the guy who is warranted a shot due to a dodgy previous decision, to add legitimacy to your Title claim.

Briggs didn't have any belt, and while on the topic of bad decisions, Briggs didn't even deserve the W vs Foreman! But everyone and their mother saw that Schultz beat Foreman . .than Moorer beats Schultz, then Moorer gets KO'd by Evander. Holyfield was the more legit champion.

ding ding ding we have a winnah

You said Lewis never beat a sitting champ. He won his belt back from Oliver McCall, then beat Shannon Briggs, then went into the Holyfield fights. He beat them all. I'm confused

I think Klompton may be a touch confused.

How else to explain his saying Holyfield was robbed against Moorer, but Lewis DIDNT beat Holyfield in their first meet? Someone is an Evander fan

Ah, I get it now. klompton believes Lewis won neither of the Holyfield fights, and stated it as a fact.

Lineage aside, as it's debatable and mildly irrelevant in this period, both Holyfield and Lewis needed to find out who was number 1. Not giving Lewis a win in either fight, when one's on record and the other is considered a ''dodgy'' decision is hypocritical.

And it isn't Lewis's fault McCall went bonkers. Though I'd like to know a little more about this fight, some things will remain a mystery.

McCall was not a sitting champion when Lewis fought him. That fight was for a vacant belt. They drug a crack head out of rehab to fight Lewis and while literally crying in the ring with his hands down and Lewis teeing off on him the fight was stopped. Some championship...

Briggs wasnt a sitting champion either. Foreman had been stripped of his titles LONG before Lewis ever fought Briggs... Once again, Great championship match...

When Lewis finally did "win" against Holyfield most thought it was a bad decision. Whether you agree or not with the first fight two wrongs dont make a right, so yes, I stand by my ascertion that Lewis didnt defeat a sitting champion until Rahman. So in essence he actually had to lose a title to someone in one of the biggest upsets in HW history in order to actually win it back from a champion. Pretty pathetic.

So yes, it wasnt until 8 years after being literally handed his first championship that Lewis clearly defeated a champion to win a title. Pretty funny.

I know Im laughing reading it D

dempseyfire wrote:

JDC wrote:Now there's a bad decision lineage???

No, you beat the guy who is regarded as the champ and get the belt. Then you might fight the guy who is warranted a shot due to a dodgy previous decision, to add legitimacy to your Title claim.

Briggs didn't have any belt, and while on the topic of bad decisions, Briggs didn't even deserve the W vs Foreman! But everyone and their mother saw that Schultz beat Foreman . .than Moorer beats Schultz, then Moorer gets KO'd by Evander. Holyfield was the more legit champion.

If there was still only one belt and not these stupid alphabet titles, then Lewis would have been the challenger and Briggs the champion. Like Ali and Michael Spinks before him, Briggs beat the man who beat the man, going all the way back to Corbett and Sullivan. There will always be a question mark if someone doesn't lose the title in the ring.

Lewis might have been rated higher, but Briggs was the man until Lewis beat him.

keithmoonhangover wrote:If there was still only one belt and not these stupid alphabet titles, then Lewis would have been the challenger and Briggs the champion. Like Ali and Michael Spinks before him, Briggs beat the man who beat the man, going all the way back to Corbett and Sullivan.

With that logic, the trail and therefore the championship, ended with Tunney.

The Great John L wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:If there was still only one belt and not these stupid alphabet titles, then Lewis would have been the challenger and Briggs the champion. Like Ali and Michael Spinks before him, Briggs beat the man who beat the man, going all the way back to Corbett and Sullivan.

With that logic, the trail and therefore the championship, ended with Tunney.

No. Schmeling and Sharkey's fights gave us a universally recognized champion. As I'm sure you already know.