Greatest Southpaw Heavyweight Champion (besides Moorer)?

[Marchegiano]

The WBA recognized them in 2000
The WBC recognized them in 2004
The IBF recognized them in 2007

I don't think it needed universal recognition. Just one or two of the other big 3 legitimized the title, especially since Sanders was considered the #2 when he beat Wlad and then went on to challenge Vitali.

That's a very fair point. I did just assume full validation equated to legitimization.

So then, is Moorer's 92 WBO worth anything? That would make his first official big body reign his second WBA/IBF 94 reign, right?

I only think it's interesting because the current bodies get this retro treatment, in this case 92 WBO was recognized by nothing but 92 Moorer is pretty much universally accepted as a world HW champion while Evander and Rid**** are considered 92's undisputed HW champion, also pretty universally.

Like if I went into NSB and asked if pre-2000 WBO champions are legitimate, let's say Tommy in 93, then I'm pretty sure that poll would be very much in favor of Morrison being a champ, but, if I asked was Lennox the undisputed champion in 2000 in a separate poll that too would come up in favor of Lennox.

As long as I don't tell the NSB kiddies about official recognition of the big bodies I doubt they even consider it, just look up Tommy, see he had a WBO and say "yup" and then in a few days as long ask the Lennox question and of course everyone will say Lennox was the last undisputed.

Conversely, ask anyone if Langford, Godfrey(30s), Savold, or T. Sharkey were legitimate champions and they will tell you no. The IBU becoming the EBU and recognizing the WBC world champs killed its own argument for world championship, like, retro-actively. However, the WBO recognizing WBC/WBA/and IBF champions legitimizes their pre-recognition champions to some degree. IBU being just an example, no one gives and ****s about bbboc/nsc champions either.

I'm curious how official vs random this is. Do fans simply say and agree to a lot of conflicting ideas, or, is it more fan interpretation not lining up with official implication?

[QueensburyRules]

Okay bud, what's that got to do with official recognition?

I got the WBC/A were recognizing the IBF before Larry then a whole bunch of **** about people's opinions.

Was Lennox undisputed or was Vitali's WBO reign an official world champion run? Super simple bud.

- -The suit stooges like Doogie say undisputed.

Those of us who know up from down know Vit was heavily ducked with a belt to match the longevity of the IBF.

[Marchegiano]

- -The suit stooges like Doogie say undisputed.

Those of us who know up from down know Vit was heavily ducked with a belt to match the longevity of the IBF.

I got you. Are there any belts or authorities you respect or are you universally fighter-centric?

Personally, like you give a **** I don't disagree.

[famicommander]

That's a very fair point. I did just assume full validation equated to legitimization.

So then, is Moorer's 92 WBO worth anything? That would make his first official big body reign his second WBA/IBF 94 reign, right?

I only think it's interesting because the current bodies get this retro treatment, in this case 92 WBO was recognized by nothing but 92 Moorer is pretty much universally accepted as a world HW champion while Evander and Rid**** are considered 92's undisputed HW champion, also pretty universally.

Like if I went into NSB and asked if pre-2000 WBO champions are legitimate, let's say Tommy in 93, then I'm pretty sure that poll would be very much in favor of Morrison being a champ, but, if I asked was Lennox the undisputed champion in 2000 in a separate poll that too would come up in favor of Lennox.

As long as I don't tell the NSB kiddies about official recognition of the big bodies I doubt they even consider it, just look up Tommy, see he had a WBO and say "yup" and then in a few days as long ask the Lennox question and of course everyone will say Lennox was the last undisputed.

Conversely, ask anyone if Langford, Godfrey(30s), Savold, or T. Sharkey were legitimate champions and they will tell you no. The IBU becoming the EBU and recognizing the WBC world champs killed its own argument for world championship, like, retro-actively. However, the WBO recognizing WBC/WBA/and IBF champions legitimizes their pre-recognition champions to some degree. IBU being just an example, no one gives and ****s about bbboc/nsc champions either.

I'm curious how official vs random this is. Do fans simply say and agree to a lot of conflicting ideas, or, is it more fan interpretation not lining up with official implication?

It's hard to say regarding pre-2000 WBO.

I think the pre-2000 WBO belt, based solely on who held it, is more legitimate than the WBA (Regular) belt at the very least but I wouldn't put guys like Damiani, Hide, or Akinwande up there with the contemporary WBA/WBC/IBF champions either.

It's a messy issue, like so many other things in boxing.

And yeah, if you want to get technical the first legitimate reign for Moorer was when he beat Holyfield for the unified WBA, IBF, and lineal titles in 1994. I only listed his WBO reign and Chagaev's (Regular) reign for the sake of completeness, not as an endorsement of their legitimacy. Since both guys also held legitimate world titles they qualify as world champions regardless of how you view their other titles.

Sanders on the other hand I believe has a legitimate claim as a world champion even though he only won the WBO belt in 2003 when only one of the others was recognizing the WBO. Knocking out Wlad in the second round and getting into a vacant Ring ****zine title fight next is a much more legit accomplishment to me than, say, Charles Martin winning a vacant IBF strap because his opponent blew a knee.

[QueensburyRules]

I got you. Are there any belts or authorities you respect or are you universally fighter-centric?

Personally, like you give a **** I don't disagree.

- -I'm 100% fighter centric no matter the good, bad, and Ugly.

[JAB5239]

- -I'm 100% fighter centric no matter the good, bad, and Ugly.

Than you would agree Larry Holmes was the best fighter of his era, right?

[QueensburyRules]

Than you would agree Larry Holmes was the best fighter of his era, right?

- -The best WBC champ a bare crack in the full window of his era.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Sanders was faaaaar better than Moorer. Like not even close.


There are many fighters I'd pick against Sanders at his best. There aren't really many Moorer fights that I'd even tune in to watch.

[JAB5239]

Sanders was faaaaar better than Moorer. Like not even close.


There are many fighters I'd pick against Sanders at his best. There aren't really many Moorer fights that I'd even tune in to watch.

Moorer beat better fighters, while Sanders was stopped by lesser fighters.

[QueensburyRules]

Moorer beat better fighters, while Sanders was stopped by lesser fighters.

- -Sanders has the best scalp all while playing pro rugby and golf because boxing couldn't pay the bills during the apartheid boycott.

U really are quite provincial in an international sport.