Putting BHOP in Perspective

[Fenster]

Marble,

Here's an example -

Foreman reigns as lineal (THE MAN) heavyweight champion between 1994-97 after stopping Moorer. He defends the LINEAL title against Axel Schulz, Crawford Grimsley and Lou Savarese before losing to Briggs.

During this time - Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis and Tyson are active. As well as Mercer, Morrison, McCall, Ruddock, Bruno, etc.

So, Foreman was without doubt THE man, but was he the no.1 heavyweight in the world? And were his lineal title defences more important than these other top guys facing off?

[marbleheadmaui]

Marble,

Here's an example -

Foreman reigns as lineal (THE MAN) heavyweight champion between 1994-97 after stopping Moorer. He defends the LINEAL title against Axel Schulz, Crawford Grimsley and Lou Savarese before losing to Briggs.

During this time - Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis and Tyson are active. As well as Mercer, Morrison, McCall, Ruddock, Bruno, etc.

So, Foreman was without doubt THE man, but was he the no.1 heavyweight in the world? And were his lineal title defences more important than these other top guys facing off?

Yup and they were at least as important. If Foreman (and BHOP last night) had NOT ascended to the top of the mountain? Why all the hoopla?

Again, if the heavyweight champ is NOT the #1 heavy in the world? Then neither term has any useful meaning and I haven't the vaguest idea how the sport is actually organized. Do you?

[JazMerkin]

Ok, I haven't fully gone through the expansive list at the top, but I've got a few disagreements with the first bit of your lists that offer it.

You've included Emile Griffith & Alexis Arguello as 3 weight lineal champions. Both are two of my personal favourites, but I don't see how you can argue that either was definitively THE MAN at 3 weights. Arguello was undeniably lineal champ at 130 & 135, but I don't see how his win over Olivares makes him lineal champ. I don't think there was a lineal champ after maybe Jofre until maybe the Lopez-Kotei matchup & I don't think that you could argue that there was another fight up that was for the lineal title. They were still alphabets then, even if there were only two of them.

As for Griffith, I know he was champ at WW & MW, but where else? I'm assuming it was for maybe a light-middle title, but who did he beat to make him the man?

I think there's also an argument for Oscar De La Hoya being a 3 division lineal champ at 140, 147 & 154, while on the being a two division champ in at least 2 of the original 8 divisions, you've left out Mayweather & Ross.

Good list though, nice work!

[marbleheadmaui]

Ok, I haven't fully gone through the expansive list at the top, but I've got a few disagreements with the first bit of your lists that offer it.

You've included Emile Griffith & Alexis Arguello as 3 weight lineal champions. Both are two of my personal favourites, but I don't see how you can argue that either was definitively THE MAN at 3 weights. Arguello was undeniably lineal champ at 130 & 135, but I don't see how his win over Olivares makes him lineal champ. I don't think there was a lineal champ after maybe Jofre until maybe the Lopez-Kotei matchup & I don't think that you could argue that there was another fight up that was for the lineal title. They were still alphabets then, even if there were only two of them.

As for Griffith, I know he was champ at WW & MW, but where else? I'm assuming it was for maybe a light-middle title, but who did he beat to make him the man?

I think there's also an argument for Oscar De La Hoya being a 3 division lineal champ at 140, 147 & 154, while on the being a two division champ in at least 2 of the original 8 divisions, you've left out Mayweather & Ross.

Good list though, nice work!

Good thouights all around. At 126 there was no clearcut guy after Jofre, but when Arguello fought Olivares it was pretty clearly 1 vs.2. Ring Magazine, Cyberboxingzone and me all recognize it Plus it was Alexis! (No, I'm not biased there...really...I mean it)

Emile was the inaugural champ at 154 for about seven seconds.

I agree I screwed up on Ross and Mayweather on two divisions! Thanks for the correction!

Oscar at 140? Geeze was Chavez STILL the guy then? Works for me! Thanks again for the corrections!

[JazMerkin]

Ok, I haven't fully gone through the expansive list at the top, but I've got a few disagreements with the first bit of your lists that offer it.

You've included Emile Griffith & Alexis Arguello as 3 weight lineal champions. Both are two of my personal favourites, but I don't see how you can argue that either was definitively THE MAN at 3 weights. Arguello was undeniably lineal champ at 130 & 135, but I don't see how his win over Olivares makes him lineal champ. I don't think there was a lineal champ after maybe Jofre until maybe the Lopez-Kotei matchup & I don't think that you could argue that there was another fight up that was for the lineal title. They were still alphabets then, even if there were only two of them.

As for Griffith, I know he was champ at WW & MW, but where else? I'm assuming it was for maybe a light-middle title, but who did he beat to make him the man?

I think there's also an argument for Oscar De La Hoya being a 3 division lineal champ at 140, 147 & 154, while on the being a two division champ in at least 2 of the original 8 divisions, you've left out Mayweather & Ross.

Good list though, nice work!

Good thouights all around. At 126 there was no clearcut guy after Jofre, but when Arguello fought Olivares it was pretty clearly 1 vs.2. Ring Magazine, Cyberboxingzone and me all recognize it Plus it was Alexis! (No, I'm not biased there...really...I mean it)

Emile was the inaugural champ at 154 for about seven seconds.

I agree I screwed up on Ross and Mayweather on two divisions! Thanks for the correction!

Oscar at 140? Geeze was Chavez STILL the guy then? Works for me! Thanks again for the corrections!

Well if Cyberboxingzone recognizes it that's good enough for me

I have a lot more faith in them than Ring. I still think Olivares was too patchy then to be #1 or #2 (look at me saying that like I was even alive). But it's Arguello so I'm good with it

I still can't go with the Griffith one. I know CBZ agrees with that, but having looked into it the fact it was a vacant title and only recognized by the Austrian Board of Control () has me having doubts.

Yeah, apparently JCC was still the guy somehow.

I like your list though, it's given me greater encouragement on my post in the other thread re: Mayweather. When someone calls me out on it, I'm citing this as my defending evidence

Also made me look up Terry McGovern who I'm ashamed to say I hadn't heard of.

[Fenster]

Marble,

Here's an example -

Foreman reigns as lineal (THE MAN) heavyweight champion between 1994-97 after stopping Moorer. He defends the LINEAL title against Axel Schulz, Crawford Grimsley and Lou Savarese before losing to Briggs.

During this time - Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis and Tyson are active. As well as Mercer, Morrison, McCall, Ruddock, Bruno, etc.

So, Foreman was without doubt THE man, but was he the no.1 heavyweight in the world? And were his lineal title defences more important than these other top guys facing off?

Yup and they were at least as important. If Foreman (and BHOP last night) had NOT ascended to the top of the mountain? Why all the hoopla?

Again, if the heavyweight champ is NOT the #1 heavy in the world? Then neither term has any useful meaning and I haven't the vaguest idea how the sport is actually organized. Do you?

I fully agree Foreman was THE man. His "title" was the only thing worthwhile.

I'm asking you, as a fan, did you really regard Foreman-Savarese a better match-up than Holyfield-Bowe because it had linage attached?

[marbleheadmaui]

Marble,

Here's an example -

Foreman reigns as lineal (THE MAN) heavyweight champion between 1994-97 after stopping Moorer. He defends the LINEAL title against Axel Schulz, Crawford Grimsley and Lou Savarese before losing to Briggs.

During this time - Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis and Tyson are active. As well as Mercer, Morrison, McCall, Ruddock, Bruno, etc.

So, Foreman was without doubt THE man, but was he the no.1 heavyweight in the world? And were his lineal title defences more important than these other top guys facing off?

Yup and they were at least as important. If Foreman (and BHOP last night) had NOT ascended to the top of the mountain? Why all the hoopla?

Again, if the heavyweight champ is NOT the #1 heavy in the world? Then neither term has any useful meaning and I haven't the vaguest idea how the sport is actually organized. Do you?

I fully agree Foreman was THE man. His "title" was the only thing worthwhile.

I'm asking you, as a fan, did you really regard Foreman-Savarese a better match-up than Holyfield-Bowe because it had linage attached?

Foreman-Savarese was more important that Bowe-Holyfield III if that's what you are asking. Was it as much fun? Nope. But that's hindsight isn't it?

[Fenster]

Marble,

Here's an example -

Foreman reigns as lineal (THE MAN) heavyweight champion between 1994-97 after stopping Moorer. He defends the LINEAL title against Axel Schulz, Crawford Grimsley and Lou Savarese before losing to Briggs.

During this time - Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis and Tyson are active. As well as Mercer, Morrison, McCall, Ruddock, Bruno, etc.

So, Foreman was without doubt THE man, but was he the no.1 heavyweight in the world? And were his lineal title defences more important than these other top guys facing off?

Yup and they were at least as important. If Foreman (and BHOP last night) had NOT ascended to the top of the mountain? Why all the hoopla?

Again, if the heavyweight champ is NOT the #1 heavy in the world? Then neither term has any useful meaning and I haven't the vaguest idea how the sport is actually organized. Do you?

I fully agree Foreman was THE man. His "title" was the only thing worthwhile.

I'm asking you, as a fan, did you really regard Foreman-Savarese a better match-up than Holyfield-Bowe because it had linage attached?

Foreman-Savarese was more important that Bowe-Holyfield III if that's what you are asking. Was it as much fun? Nope. But that's hindsight isn't it?

Not really.

The best fight the best is the ultimate goal. It seems as though you're happy for mediocre to fight mediocre if the lineal title is on the line and ignore they're not the best.

You didn't really think Foreman/Savarese were better fighters than Holyfield/Bowe, right?

[marbleheadmaui]

Marble,

Here's an example -

Foreman reigns as lineal (THE MAN) heavyweight champion between 1994-97 after stopping Moorer. He defends the LINEAL title against Axel Schulz, Crawford Grimsley and Lou Savarese before losing to Briggs.

During this time - Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis and Tyson are active. As well as Mercer, Morrison, McCall, Ruddock, Bruno, etc.

So, Foreman was without doubt THE man, but was he the no.1 heavyweight in the world? And were his lineal title defences more important than these other top guys facing off?

Yup and they were at least as important. If Foreman (and BHOP last night) had NOT ascended to the top of the mountain? Why all the hoopla?

Again, if the heavyweight champ is NOT the #1 heavy in the world? Then neither term has any useful meaning and I haven't the vaguest idea how the sport is actually organized. Do you?

I fully agree Foreman was THE man. His "title" was the only thing worthwhile.

I'm asking you, as a fan, did you really regard Foreman-Savarese a better match-up than Holyfield-Bowe because it had linage attached?

Foreman-Savarese was more important that Bowe-Holyfield III if that's what you are asking. Was it as much fun? Nope. But that's hindsight isn't it?

Not really.

The best fight the best is the ultimate goal. It seems as though you're happy for mediocre to fight mediocre if the lineal title is on the line and ignore they're not the best.

You didn't really think Foreman/Savarese were better fighters than Holyfield/Bowe, right?

The value of the title is the ONLY thing that, over time, drives the best fighting the best. Otherwise guys will just take money fights (see Boxing since about 1995). I mean the reason Bowe-Holyfield III matterred at all was because of their prior title fights.

[Fenster]

Marble,

Here's an example -

Foreman reigns as lineal (THE MAN) heavyweight champion between 1994-97 after stopping Moorer. He defends the LINEAL title against Axel Schulz, Crawford Grimsley and Lou Savarese before losing to Briggs.

During this time - Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis and Tyson are active. As well as Mercer, Morrison, McCall, Ruddock, Bruno, etc.

So, Foreman was without doubt THE man, but was he the no.1 heavyweight in the world? And were his lineal title defences more important than these other top guys facing off?

Yup and they were at least as important. If Foreman (and BHOP last night) had NOT ascended to the top of the mountain? Why all the hoopla?

Again, if the heavyweight champ is NOT the #1 heavy in the world? Then neither term has any useful meaning and I haven't the vaguest idea how the sport is actually organized. Do you?

I fully agree Foreman was THE man. His "title" was the only thing worthwhile.

I'm asking you, as a fan, did you really regard Foreman-Savarese a better match-up than Holyfield-Bowe because it had linage attached?

Foreman-Savarese was more important that Bowe-Holyfield III if that's what you are asking. Was it as much fun? Nope. But that's hindsight isn't it?

Not really.

The best fight the best is the ultimate goal. It seems as though you're happy for mediocre to fight mediocre if the lineal title is on the line and ignore they're not the best.

You didn't really think Foreman/Savarese were better fighters than Holyfield/Bowe, right?

The value of the title is the ONLY thing that, over time, drives the best fighting the best. Otherwise guys will just take money fights (see Boxing since about 1995). I mean the reason Bowe-Holyfield III matterred at all was because of their prior title fights.

Foreman-Savarese wasn't the best fighting the best. Take the linage away and you would never even mention it, because you know it's a veteran vs a borderline journeyman fight. Holyfield-Bowe, among many others, were far, far superior heavyweights at this time.

When has Pro boxing NOT been about money? Has there ever been guys that didn't pursue their most lucrative money option?