IYO was Oliver McCall was HW Champion ?

[Willie Pep 229]

SORRY FOR THE POORLY WRITTEN TOPIC TITLE - I can not edit it.

Over on boxrec we created a collection of all the times the undisputed / lineal HW Campion's were KD.

//perno.com/lists/HWCKD.html

We ended up disagreeing whether Oliver McCall deserved to be considered one of those champions.

We included Hasim Rahman, but the argument against McCall was that Lewis was not yet lineal champion (having not yet defeated Briggs) when he lost to McCall and therefor McCall was merely a claimant.

At the time I was of the mind that if a claimant eventually becomes undisputed or lineal (without losing in the interim) then all his earlier fights move up to the level of legit HW defenses, e.g. Holmes and Lewis

So do you all consider Oliver McCall on the short list of undisputed or lineal champions?

The boxrec guys didn't.

[famicommander]

George Foreman was the lineal world champion when McCall beat Lewis. The fact that Lewis later became lineal champion has absolutely nothing to do will McCall.

Oliver McCall was a world titlist. Never a world champion.

[The Old LefHook]

He had one of the best nicknames ever. What makes you think a man has to be a unified champion before he is a real champion? I doubt if there are even eight legitimate boxing champions, using your guidelines.

Also, did you consult Queensbree and Nash on this? Why don't you do that before you finalize your opinion? It is just more fun for you, right?

[Willie Pep 229]

George Foreman was the lineal world champion when McCall beat Lewis. The fact that Lewis later became lineal champion has absolutely nothing to do will McCall.

Oliver McCall was a world titlist. Never a world champion.

You feel there is no retro clause involved? Even though both at the time, and historically, we can see that Lewis was the unquestioned reigning "titlist."

Do you feel that Holmes was merely a titlist not a champion until he needlessly brutalized Ali?

Certainly no one, Ali, Holmes, the fight game needed that to happen.

Eh, then again in this case I think I might agree with you. I was actually looking for opinions. I'm ambivalent about it.

In the end we didn't include McCall.

[billeau2]

You feel there is no retro clause involved? Even though both at the time, and historically, we can see that Lewis was the unquestioned reigning "titlist."

Do you feel that Holmes was merely a titlist not a champion until he needlessly brutalized Ali?

Certainly no one, Ali, Holmes, the fight game needed that to happen.

Eh, then again in this case I think I might agree with you. I was actually looking for opinions. I'm ambivalent about it.

In the end we didn't include McCall.

Pep,
If you were in a philosophy class I taught this is what I would do... reduce the claim and information to its essential logical nature so:

1. The Lineal... While it is the man who beats the best, essentially it is supposed to be who the fans pick. Why? because the best can ne arbitrary. Logically there will be instances where the best fighter is not the only champion for any number of reasons. There will be times when the best has a claim to a championship as a subset of the above statement.
2. The situation: Fighter A beats a champion. Does that make him the lineal? lewis was the best.

given this logic I think McCall has a claim to the lineal. Two consistencies: 1) the lineal is for the man who beats the best. 2) Mccall beat the best. the fans considered Lewis better than briggs.

How could McCall not be the Lineal? Am I Missing something?

[Willow The Wisp]

George Foreman was the lineal world champion when McCall beat Lewis. The fact that Lewis later became lineal champion has absolutely nothing to do will McCall.

Oliver McCall was a world titlist. Never a world champion.

Exactly right. There is no room for any debate about this topic whatsoever.

[ShoulderRoll]

Lennox has some bad losses doesn't he?

Surely has to hurt him in the all-time heavyweight rankings.

[Willow The Wisp]

Lineal is a term used only for describing the passing of the title through a win/loss in the ring -or- the circumstances where lineage is reconnected when all reasonable criteria is met by matching the publicly perceived best contenders active head to head or through a round robbin tournament. The latter was carried out, during modern times, after Jeffries retired, after Tunney retired, after Louis retired, after Marciano retired, after Ali was forced to retire, and after Ali voluntarily retired and after Lewis retired. In the cases of Jeffries, Louis, and Ali both times, the retired champion came back later to lose to the newly established champion, and double-connected the integrity of the title lineage. It's not complicated, and it has no relationship to the fickle public or press perception about "who is best". If you really are better - prove it in the ring.

[Nash out]

Lennox has some bad losses doesn't he?

Surely has to hurt him in the all-time heavyweight rankings.

He does, but sadly they get looked past so people can rank him above modern fighters. This was not green Lewis either, this was Lewis in his absolute prime, and yes, credit for the rematch wins, but really, a top guy should be beating B/C level opposition with 2 bites at the cherry. He also in his prime lost to Mercer in reality, and he was very one-paced and predictable in that fight. I watched Lewis's whole career, and was and still am a big fan, but Tyson Fury beats him handily imo. I'd take Wilder to beat Lewis as well. Nash out.

[Nash out]

He had one of the best nicknames ever. What makes you think a man has to be a unified champion before he is a real champion? I doubt if there are even eight legitimate boxing champions, using your guidelines.

Also, did you consult Queensbree and Nash on this? Why don't you do that before you finalize your opinion? It is just more fun for you, right?

Old LefHook you are right, the Great Nash really should be consulted on such matters. Nash out.