The Lineal (the real) Heavyweight Champions of the World: “I don’t recognize no claimants”

[keithmoonhangover]

Elimination Fight: Wladimir Klitschko v. David Haye

Wlad vs Chageav was seen by many as the fight that made Wlad 'the man'. At the time they were #1 and #2 in the world.

[Ambling Alp II]

You may not consider Briggs a champion but he was the lineal champion nevertheless.
Regardless of ABC belts, a lineal champion is the man whoi beat the man.
Therefore Foreman was the lineal champion until he (contoversially) lost to Shannon Briggs.
A lineal champion remains so until he gets beaten, retires or dies.

Then why is Larry Holmes considered the lineal champion after beating Ken Norton? Leon Spinks had not yet got beaten, retired or died.

When a lineal champion retires, a new lineage is created when the #1 and #2 boxers fight each other.
Holmes became the lineal champion when he beat the #2 rated Mike Weaver - not when he beat Norton. Ali was still the linear champion at the time of the Holmes v Norton contest.
Just to clear up any confusion, Holmes beat the former lineal champion (Ali) a couple of contests later anyway.

The OP had said that Holmes became the lineal champion after beating Norton. I thought you agreed.

More importantly:
How in the world is Mike Weaver #2? He was not even a top 10 contender when Holmes beat him. Don't see how that fight made Holmes a lineal champion.
How is Ali the lineal champion when Holmes beat Norton? At the time of the Norton-Holmes bout, Spinks had not lost yet.

[SteveO]

Then why is Larry Holmes considered the lineal champion after beating Ken Norton? Leon Spinks had not yet got beaten, retired or died.

When a lineal champion retires, a new lineage is created when the #1 and #2 boxers fight each other.
Holmes became the lineal champion when he beat the #2 rated Mike Weaver - not when he beat Norton. Ali was still the linear champion at the time of the Holmes v Norton contest.
Just to clear up any confusion, Holmes beat the former lineal champion (Ali) a couple of contests later anyway.

The OP had said that Holmes became the lineal champion after beating Norton. I thought you agreed.

More importantly:
How in the world is Mike Weaver #2? He was not even a top 10 contender when Holmes beat him. Don't see how that fight made Holmes a lineal champion.
How is Ali the lineal champion when Holmes beat Norton? At the time of the Norton-Holmes bout, Spinks had not lost yet.

[SteveO]

When a lineal champion retires, a new lineage is created when the #1 and #2 boxers fight each other.
Holmes became the lineal champion when he beat the #2 rated Mike Weaver - not when he beat Norton. Ali was still the linear champion at the time of the Holmes v Norton contest.
Just to clear up any confusion, Holmes beat the former lineal champion (Ali) a couple of contests later anyway.

The OP had said that Holmes became the lineal champion after beating Norton. I thought you agreed.

More importantly:
How in the world is Mike Weaver #2? He was not even a top 10 contender when Holmes beat him. Don't see how that fight made Holmes a lineal champion.
How is Ali the lineal champion when Holmes beat Norton? At the time of the Norton-Holmes bout, Spinks had not lost yet.

Yes, you're right. I forgot the Holmes-Norton fight took place between the two Ali-Spinks contests. So Spinks was actually the lineal champion when Holmes beat Norton for the WBC belt.

Of course, Ali beat Spinks in the rematch and continued as lineal champion until he announced his retirement.

If it's any consolation I don't think Holmes should have been recognised a lineal champion until he beat Muhammad Ali and 'Ring' magazine agrees: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_T ... _champions

Incidentally, Ali remains the only 3 time lineal heavyweight champion ever.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Did Chagaev have his own title at the time? I thought Ibragimov was the one, I can remember being disgusted watching it as Wlad pawed and slapped with his left and was berated by Manny Steward. It was made worse as the commentary and build up was all about unification etc etc. All in all a crap time for heavyweight boxing.

Ibragimov had the WBO Title I believe when Wlad beat him so yes he did gain a belt there. Chagaev I believe was the WBA Champion at the time, and was ranked #3 behind only Wlad and Vitali as I recall, and therefore the fight between he and Wlad was considered by Ring Magazine as being for the Lineal Championship.

That's about the point that everyone else started acknowledging Wladimir as THE Champ at Heavyweight.

Ring magazine also gave Casamayor the 'lineal' Lightweight title for winning a Jr Welterweight fight. The Ring isn't lineal, they're a magazine. 1 vs 3 isn't 1 vs 2.

[gilgamesh]

Ring magazine also gave Casamayor the 'lineal' Lightweight title for winning a Jr Welterweight fight. The Ring isn't lineal, they're a magazine. 1 vs 3 isn't 1 vs 2.

The Casamayor situation was where he had made the 135 pound limit for the bout, and Corrales weighed in over...The Championship was still on the line for the Challenger as is often the case in these kinds of situations.

I agree The Ring isn't always lineal, but I consider Casamayor's victory over Corrales in their rubber match a legitimate Lightweight Championship win. A challenger can't be blamed if the Champ came in over the limit.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Ring magazine also gave Casamayor the 'lineal' Lightweight title for winning a Jr Welterweight fight. The Ring isn't lineal, they're a magazine. 1 vs 3 isn't 1 vs 2.

The Casamayor situation was where he had made the 135 pound limit for the bout, and Corrales weighed in over...The Championship was still on the line for the Challenger as is often the case in these kinds of situations.

I agree The Ring isn't always lineal, but I consider Casamayor's victory over Corrales in their rubber match a legitimate Lightweight Championship win. A challenger can't be blamed if the Champ came in over the limit.

The championship is on the line in those situations because of sanctioning fees. Under no circumstances can a lineal title be campaigned for with a fighter overweight. That's ridiculous. Castillo may as well have had it for winning the rematch.

[ldlamb]

No, because Castillo was the one overweight.

[gilgamesh]

Ring magazine also gave Casamayor the 'lineal' Lightweight title for winning a Jr Welterweight fight. The Ring isn't lineal, they're a magazine. 1 vs 3 isn't 1 vs 2.

The Casamayor situation was where he had made the 135 pound limit for the bout, and Corrales weighed in over...The Championship was still on the line for the Challenger as is often the case in these kinds of situations.

I agree The Ring isn't always lineal, but I consider Casamayor's victory over Corrales in their rubber match a legitimate Lightweight Championship win. A challenger can't be blamed if the Champ came in over the limit.

The championship is on the line in those situations because of sanctioning fees. Under no circumstances can a lineal title be campaigned for with a fighter overweight. That's ridiculous. Castillo may as well have had it for winning the rematch.

I disagree

[BoxBuzz]

The OP had said that Holmes became the lineal champion after beating Norton. I thought you agreed.

More importantly:
How in the world is Mike Weaver #2? He was not even a top 10 contender when Holmes beat him. Don't see how that fight made Holmes a lineal champion.
How is Ali the lineal champion when Holmes beat Norton? At the time of the Norton-Holmes bout, Spinks had not lost yet.

Yes, you're right. I forgot the Holmes-Norton fight took place between the two Ali-Spinks contests. So Spinks was actually the lineal champion when Holmes beat Norton for the WBC belt.

Of course, Ali beat Spinks in the rematch and continued as lineal champion until he announced his retirement.

If it's any consolation I don't think Holmes should have been recognised a lineal champion until he beat Muhammad Ali and 'Ring' magazine agrees: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_T ... _champions

Incidentally, Ali remains the only 3 time lineal heavyweight champion ever.

I agree, but I have to say, as much as I dearly loved the Spinks Bros.....Ali did set the bar a bit low in order to gain that third time around. But overall I do agree with you despite that techincal aspect.

[BoxBuzz]

I don't consider Briggs a champion. Foreman had been stripped of the title because he would not fight the top contenders. So Briggs did not beat the man who was still the champion. True, Foreman did not lose the title in the ring (until he fought Briggs), but so what.

virtually nobody ever considered Shannon Briggs the champion at the time.

Well that's the difference between a lineal champion which he was...vs perhaps a champion that you or I might define as such.

But if you go in that direction....you kinda gotta sorta dismiss Ali's return match with Spinks. Just to stay consistent......

In this case I give credit to both Foreman and Ali despite the dubiousness. Because to me lineal just "is what it is". And you can't goof with it.

In this case it's more about language than cajones.

[Ambling Alp II]

I guess with me, I consider if a guy should have been stripped. Leon Spinks was stripped of a title because he would not immediately fight the WBC #1 contender. They really had no right to do that. Their own rules say a champion had a year to do defend it against he number one contender.
George Foreman flat out deserved to have the title stripped. He refused to fight the top contenders after beating Moorer. He had fought three journeyman in the last three years.
Nobody really considered Foreman the champion by 1997.

In theory, I like the idea of having a "lineal title" because the the Alphabet Soup Organizations are corrupt.

My problem with the lineal title is this:
What is to keep a guy from winning it, not retiring, but refusing to fight the top contenders?
You can always find complete tomato cans to beat without retiring. Foreman could still be doing this today if he wanted to. So we are still supposed to consider someone the lineal champion when they are not proving themselves in the ring?

[BoxBuzz]

Based on language....the answer is yes.
Based on sensibility, honor, and cajones....no.
That's why it sucks when a genuine champ gets cold feet.

Good points on making the "timing" the critical issue. It's not a bad rationalization.

I think the Post Tunney era is clear. I think the Post Marciano era is clear. The post Ali/Spinks, is a bit blurry...but the Holmes fight clarifies it. Kudos to Ali for allowing Holmes the opportunity. The Post Foreman era is blurrier, and the Post Lewis era is an obvious blur to many here. But I have to say Wlad owns it, if by no other reason than time/ attrition. There's just no other name you can fill in that slot. Which should make Fury the current real deal.

So for what it's worth....we do have a standing champion....even if he's not the best of the current crop.

[sweetsci]

This list of Ring recognized champions is incorrect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_T ... _champions

I was a regular reader from the late 70's through the mid 2000's. In addition I had many back issues. Ring recognized Joe Frazier by virtue of Ali's early 1970 retirement announcement and Frazier's win over Jimmy Ellis. Ring recognized Larry Holmes as champ immediately after Mike Weaver won the WBA belt from John Tate, by virtue of Holmes' previous win over Weaver.

This part's a little more fuzzy in my memory, but I even though they didn't list champions in their ratings for several years, I think Ring acknowledged Shannon Briggs as legit world champ in '97 in an article previewing the Lewis-Briggs fight. I sadly no longer have my Rings, so I can't go back and look.

[Kalan]

Kudos to Ali for allowing Holmes the opportunity

Holmes wasn't thrilled with the timing... If he got the Ali fight instead of Leon Spinks getting it -- it would have been good -- or right after Spinks was stripped of the title and Holmes beat Norton for the title would have been good... or even a Title Unification Fight right AFTER Ali-Spinks 2 the fight would have done Holmes some good... Instead, Ali ignored Holmes's title and threw a gala retirement party...he was outta here.

Holmes-Ali really happened out of the blue... Ali needed money and it was his top payday EVER... Holmes said, "I'm going to be Ezzard Charles beating on Joe Louis. It's not a fight that will be remembered by anybody or something I'll get recognition for. It's just something I have to do and let's get it over with."

[BoxBuzz]

Kudos to Ali for allowing Holmes the opportunity

Holmes wasn't thrilled with the timing... If he got the Ali fight instead of Leon Spinks getting it -- it would have been good -- or right after Spinks was stripped of the title and Holmes beat Norton for the title would have been good... or even a Title Unification Fight right AFTER Ali-Spinks 2 the fight would have done Holmes some good... Instead, Ali ignored Holmes's title and threw a gala retirement party...he was outta here.

Holmes-Ali really happened out of the blue... Ali needed money and it was his top payday EVER... Holmes said, "I'm going to be Ezzard Charles beating on Joe Louis. It's not a fight that will be remembered by anybody or something I'll get recognition for. It's just something I have to do and let's get it over with."

Well that's what a pro does....takes care of business. Prize fighters.....that's what it is. Money to be made. Ali would beat Holmes head to head in their primes, (don't argue with me about that, because I'll just show you the error of your thinking,) but Holmes needed to have the torch passed....and they made some money at it. The Holmes Ali fight meant nothing just as many other such fights, when the aging champion is bested by the next generation fighter. But it served a purpose for their paydays, and for the genuine passing of the torch.

[APerno]

Kudos to Ali for allowing Holmes the opportunity

. . . The Holmes Ali fight meant nothing just as many other such fights, when the aging champion is bested by the next generation fighter. But it served a purpose for their paydays, and for the genuine passing of the torch.

Your point is well made, in the end that was what the Holmes-Ali fight was: a payday and a coronation; in retrospect I wonder if the damage Ali suffered made either the payday, or the passing of the torch, worth the price paid.

What I am about to say may sound silly, and may be nothing more than me wanting prize fighting to be more romantic than it actually is but . . .

I think it was important to Ali to fight Holmes, and allow Holmes to take his title in the ring; Ali believed he was still the champ, and that Holmes deserved a shot at 'The Greatest' - that the 'passing of the torch' was, to Ali, at least as important, if not more important, than yet another payday - that Ali had a great respect for the title he held.

I guess I want to believe that Ali didn't need the money, and knew he would lose, but felt an obligation to take the fight anyway.

Then again, maybe I just want boxing to be more romantic than it actually is . . .

[Kalan]

Kudos to Ali for allowing Holmes the opportunity

Holmes wasn't thrilled with the timing... If he got the Ali fight instead of Leon Spinks getting it -- it would have been good -- or right after Spinks was stripped of the title and Holmes beat Norton for the title would have been good... or even a Title Unification Fight right AFTER Ali-Spinks 2 the fight would have done Holmes some good... Instead, Ali ignored Holmes's title and threw a gala retirement party...he was outta here.

Holmes-Ali really happened out of the blue... Ali needed money and it was his top payday EVER... Holmes said, "I'm going to be Ezzard Charles beating on Joe Louis. It's not a fight that will be remembered by anybody or something I'll get recognition for. It's just something I have to do and let's get it over with."

Well that's what a pro does....takes care of business. Prize fighters.....that's what it is. Money to be made. Ali would beat Holmes head to head in their primes, (don't argue with me about that, because I'll just show you the error of your thinking,) but Holmes needed to have the torch passed....and they made some money at it. The Holmes Ali fight meant nothing just as many other such fights, when the aging champion is bested by the next generation fighter. But it served a purpose for their paydays, and for the genuine passing of the torch.

Holmes would have appreciated the torch being past much earlier.. Ali never would have beaten Holmes.. Holmes won his first 48 fights and Ali didn't.. Ali lost in his 20's to a little short, fat, easy to hit left hooker.. At 31 Ali lost to the uncoordinated 10-1 underdog Ken Norton, who jabbed Ali right in the face although he really didn't have a jab.. Holmes was past his prime when he finally lost -- but he continued to fight until he was 52, and suffered no ill effects from it -- unlike the more hittable Ali.

[Syntax Error]

It's lineal and the concept is way outdated.

This is on the money.

The concept of the linear champion was broken a long long time ago, but it gives us something to talk about though.

[SteveO]

I was a regular reader from the late 70's through the mid 2000's. In addition I had many back issues. Ring recognized Joe Frazier by virtue of Ali's early 1970 retirement announcement and Frazier's win over Jimmy Ellis. Ring recognized Larry Holmes as champ immediately after Mike Weaver won the WBA belt from John Tate, by virtue of Holmes' previous win over Weaver.

This part's a little more fuzzy in my memory, but I even though they didn't list champions in their ratings for several years, I think Ring acknowledged Shannon Briggs as legit world champ in '97 in an article previewing the Lewis-Briggs fight. I sadly no longer have my Rings, so I can't go back and look.

Your memory serves you well.
This is all correct