Lineal Champions

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 24 Oct 2006, 13:30

From reading vasious posts in the past, I have become a little confused about what a lineal champion is.
I am hoping that some of my esteemed colleagues here can shed some light on this.

What is a lineal champion?

Who are a few examples of current lineal champions?

Who have been the lineal heavyweight champions since say, Ali?

mattyp151 · Post by **mattyp151** » 24 Oct 2006, 14:43

Lineal champ is a guy who has unified the major titles, or at least held the biggest chunk of the 4 major titles since the WBO got their bump up to major status.

Bernard Hopkins was lineal at 160 for winning all 4 major titles, Taylor beat him and became the lineal champ, eventhough he no longer has the IBF and his WBA belt is in limbo right now.

Shannon Briggs (no longer champ) became lineal a while back after beating Foreman, eventhough there was no belt at stake. Foreman beat Moorer, who Holyfield, who beat Bowe, who beat Holyfield, who beat Buster Douglas, who beat Tyson, who unified the big three....I think that's how it went.

Another current lineal champ is Zsolt Erdei, Julio Gonzalez, who beat Michalczewski, who unified 3 of 4 with Virgil Hill. A common misconception is RJJr was the lineal champ because if it belt outside of the WBO, Roy had it. BUT, if you give up belts, you can't lose a lineal title until you lose or retire.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 24 Oct 2006, 15:00

Ambling Alp wrote:From reading vasious posts in the past, I have become a little confused about what a lineal champion is.
I am hoping that some of my esteemed colleagues here can shed some light on this.

What is a lineal champion?

Who are a few examples of current lineal champions?

Who have been the lineal heavyweight champions since say, Ali?

Ali, Holmes, Spinks, Tyson, Douglas, Holyfield, Boew, Holyfield, Moorer, Foreman, Briggs, Lewis, Rahman, Lewis. Since then it's unclear, although Vitali won the title Lewis deserted, Rahman won the title Vitali deserted, and Maskaev took that title now from Rahman. So I guess if there is a lineal champ at this stage it's Maskaev.

However, I personally don't make too much of the "lineal" business. It tried to maintain the illusion that there is only one title and it could change hands only if the previous titleholder gets beaten (or someone takes up his title after reitrement). But since the lineal title doesn't mean anything, it's not the best who fight for it but subject to randomness.

JC · Post by JC » 24 Oct 2006, 15:16

The way I have tended to think about it to become lineal champion currently you need to either beat the previous lineal champion.

Or if, for some reason, the previous lineal champion has vacated thie title by retiring, moving up in weight class or for any other reason a fighter can become lineal champion in that weight class by unifying all three of the big belts (WBC,WBA,IBF). One this has been done that fighter will remain lineal champion until he loses, regardless of wether he keeps hold of all the belts or is say, stripped for not defending against a mandatory.

So for example,

Cory Spinks is lineal welterweight champion and holds all the belts, Spinks loses to Judah who then becomes champion and discards the WBA and IBF belts but remains champion until he loses to Baldomir.

Ali
Frazier
Foreman
Ali
Spinks
Ali
Holmes (IMO Holmes wins this by beating Ali in 1980 but this is disputable as Ali retired after regaining title from Spinks so it could be argued the title was then vacant and Holmes should have had to unify the belts)
Spinks
Tyson
Douglas
Holyfield
Bowe
Holyfield
Moorer
Foreman
Briggs
Lewis

Hope that make sense.

I don't consider Vitali lineal champ, the ring do because he was the number one contender and beat sanders who was their no2, but I don't accept this as a criteria.

mattyp151 · Post by **mattyp151** » 24 Oct 2006, 16:59

Cory Spinks is lineal welterweight champion and holds all the belts, Spinks loses to Judah who then becomes champion and discards the WBA and IBF belts but remains champion until he loses to Baldomir.

A little off.

Spinks unifies by beating Judah, Judah beats Spinks, Baldomir beats Judah for WBC and lineal titles as he didn't pay fees for WBA or IBF, WBA strips promoting Collazo to fulltime WBA champ and IBF let's Zab retain. Judah loses IBF to Mayweather, Mayweather vacates, Suarez/Cintron are fighting for vacant IBF, Mayweather fighting for lineal and WBC title with Baldomir, WBA champion is Hatton, WBO Margarito.

Basically, eventhough there will be 4 champs by year's end, there still is a lineal champ. Even if Baldomir or Mayweather vacated the WBC belt for some reason, they both would retain lineal status depending on who wins.

JC · Post by JC » 24 Oct 2006, 17:10

You're right, I stand corrected. But on the main point we agree the winner of Baldomir Mayweather will be lineal welterweight champ regardless of belts.

mattyp151 · Post by **mattyp151** » 25 Oct 2006, 11:13

J-C wrote:You're right, I stand corrected. But on the main point we agree the winner of Baldomir Mayweather will be lineal welterweight champ regardless of belts.

No one can deny it. Spinks, Judah, Baldomir, the trail is an easy one to follow. Once the lineal title is created, you don't need to have any belts. Right now, at Welter, the WBO, IBF, and WBA belts are meaningless.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 25 Oct 2006, 13:32

Mattyp151 wrote:Lineal champ is a guy who has unified the major titles, or at least held the biggest chunk of the 4 major titles since the WBO got their bump up to major status.

Bernard Hopkins was lineal at 160 for winning all 4 major titles, Taylor beat him and became the lineal champ, eventhough he no longer has the IBF and his WBA belt is in limbo right now.

Shannon Briggs (no longer champ) became lineal a while back after beating Foreman, eventhough there was no belt at stake. Foreman beat Moorer, who Holyfield, who beat Bowe, who beat Holyfield, who beat Buster Douglas, who beat Tyson, who unified the big three....I think that's how it went.

Another current lineal champ is Zsolt Erdei, Julio Gonzalez, who beat Michalczewski, who unified 3 of 4 with Virgil Hill. A common misconception is RJJr was the lineal champ because if it belt outside of the WBO, Roy had it. BUT, if you give up belts, you can't lose a lineal title until you lose or retire.

Couldn't there concievably be two champions at one time? For example, what if while Briggs was the Lineal champion, another heavyweight would have 3 or 4 of the other belts?

mattyp151 · Post by **mattyp151** » 25 Oct 2006, 13:39

Ambling Alp wrote:
Mattyp151 wrote:Lineal champ is a guy who has unified the major titles, or at least held the biggest chunk of the 4 major titles since the WBO got their bump up to major status.

Bernard Hopkins was lineal at 160 for winning all 4 major titles, Taylor beat him and became the lineal champ, eventhough he no longer has the IBF and his WBA belt is in limbo right now.

Shannon Briggs (no longer champ) became lineal a while back after beating Foreman, eventhough there was no belt at stake. Foreman beat Moorer, who Holyfield, who beat Bowe, who beat Holyfield, who beat Buster Douglas, who beat Tyson, who unified the big three....I think that's how it went.

Another current lineal champ is Zsolt Erdei, Julio Gonzalez, who beat Michalczewski, who unified 3 of 4 with Virgil Hill. A common misconception is RJJr was the lineal champ because if it belt outside of the WBO, Roy had it. BUT, if you give up belts, you can't lose a lineal title until you lose or retire.
Couldn't there concievably be two champions at one time? For example, what if while Briggs was the Lineal champion, another heavyweight would have 3 or 4 of the other belts?

Nope, think DM and RJJr. DM had the WBO, Roy had WBA, WBC, IBF, IBO, NBA, IBA every fvcking thing, and he wasn't a lineal champ. Once there is one, there can only be one until he retires, then there are none.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 25 Oct 2006, 13:49

Mattyp151 wrote:Nope, think DM and RJJr. DM had the WBO, Roy had WBA, WBC, IBF, IBO, NBA, IBA every fvcking thing, and he wasn't a lineal champ. Once there is one, there can only be one until he retires, then there are none.

Exactly!! That’s what should keep Holmes from being considered a lineal champion. Ali retired and his title vacancy was filled with by the winner of a tournament. When he decided to return to the ring against Holmes, he was no longer the lineal champ, therefore Holmes win has no real bearing on the lineal title. Unless someone wants to add some small print to this whole process…

mattyp151 · Post by **mattyp151** » 25 Oct 2006, 15:23

The Great John L wrote:
Mattyp151 wrote:Nope, think DM and RJJr. DM had the WBO, Roy had WBA, WBC, IBF, IBO, NBA, IBA every fvcking thing, and he wasn't a lineal champ. Once there is one, there can only be one until he retires, then there are none.

Exactly!! That’s what should keep Holmes from being considered a lineal champion. Ali retired and his title vacancy was filled with by the winner of a tournament. When he decided to return to the ring against Holmes, he was no longer the lineal champ, therefore Holmes win has no real bearing on the lineal title. Unless someone wants to add some small print to this whole process…

Ah, well he retired, but came back, so he didn't retire retire. You know how boxing is, when someone says they're retiring, first question to come to mind should be "for how long?" Until a fighter doesn't fight for 5 years, I truly don't put them above making a comeback. Every now and then you get the Ike Quartey's or the world who comeback, but that is few and far between.

delisa · Post by **delisa** » 25 Oct 2006, 22:32

Matty -- you said it perfectly --

"Once the lineal title is created, you don't need to have any belts. Right now, at Welter, the WBO, IBF, and WBA belts are meaningless."

generic screen name · Post by **generic screen name** » 27 Oct 2006, 11:42

Roy Jones may have not been the lineal champ but he was definately the recognized champ at 175.

mattyp151 · Post by **mattyp151** » 27 Oct 2006, 11:43

generic screen name wrote:Roy Jones may have not been the lineal champ but he was definately the recognized champ at 175.

The WBO belt, the one connected to the lineal champ, was the only one he didn't have.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 27 Oct 2006, 12:24

Mattyp151 wrote:
The Great John L wrote:Exactly!! That’s what should keep Holmes from being considered a lineal champion. Ali retired and his title vacancy was filled with by the winner of a tournament. When he decided to return to the ring against Holmes, he was no longer the lineal champ, therefore Holmes win has no real bearing on the lineal title. Unless someone wants to add some small print to this whole process…
Ah, well he retired, but came back, so he didn't retire retire. You know how boxing is, when someone says they're retiring, first question to come to mind should be "for how long?" Until a fighter doesn't fight for 5 years, I truly don't put them above making a comeback. Every now and then you get the Ike Quartey's or the world who comeback, but that is few and far between.

Well, that’s fine, except for the fact he had been retired for over 2 years, and had already been replaced by a tournament of 4 reputable contenders. Had he retired and then returned without a tournament having taken place, then I would say there is some credibility, but since his title had already been vacated and a successor determined, then his claim to any lineal title really becomes meaningless. That’s the problem with any discussion of a lineal title as well, since it’s really a matter of how you define the lineage.

JC · Post by JC » 27 Oct 2006, 12:48

Mattyp151 wrote:
generic screen name wrote:Roy Jones may have not been the lineal champ but he was definately the recognized champ at 175.
The WBO belt, the one connected to the lineal champ, was the only one he didn't have.

I don't understand how DM was lineal champ. His reign as lineal champion is generally said to have started when he beat Virgil Hill but I don't understand who Hill beat to be considered lineal champ and he never unified the big three belts.

mattyp151 · Post by **mattyp151** » 27 Oct 2006, 14:01

J-C wrote:
Mattyp151 wrote:
generic screen name wrote:Roy Jones may have not been the lineal champ but he was definately the recognized champ at 175.
The WBO belt, the one connected to the lineal champ, was the only one he didn't have.
I don't understand how DM was lineal champ. His reign as lineal champion is generally said to have started when he beat Virgil Hill but I don't understand who Hill beat to be considered lineal champ and he never unified the big three belts.

He had 3 of the big 4, and 2 of the big big 3...so he basically had well over half the crown of the division by himself, so he gets crowned for that. He then dropped the big belts except the WBO (so he could milk easy and infrequent mandatories) and Roy pretty much picked everything else up.

JC · Post by JC » 30 Oct 2006, 06:13

Decagon wrote:I don't see how Roy Jones was Lineal champ. The WBC title Jones won was illegally taken away from Roccighiani, the WBA title Jones won was unconscionably taken away from Michalzcewski, and the IBF title Jones won was taken away from Michalczewski, as well. To me, there has been no clear Lineal champion since Spinks, and there won't be until the Jones and Michalczewski branches are united, or something similar happens.

That would be Erdei vs Hopkins never thought of that before.

Axe · Post by **Axe** » 13 Jan 2007, 05:10

The Great John L wrote:
Mattyp151 wrote:
The Great John L wrote:Exactly!! That’s what should keep Holmes from being considered a lineal champion. Ali retired and his title vacancy was filled with by the winner of a tournament. When he decided to return to the ring against Holmes, he was no longer the lineal champ, therefore Holmes win has no real bearing on the lineal title. Unless someone wants to add some small print to this whole process…
Ah, well he retired, but came back, so he didn't retire retire. You know how boxing is, when someone says they're retiring, first question to come to mind should be "for how long?" Until a fighter doesn't fight for 5 years, I truly don't put them above making a comeback. Every now and then you get the Ike Quartey's or the world who comeback, but that is few and far between.
Well, that’s fine, except for the fact he had been retired for over 2 years, and had already been replaced by a tournament of 4 reputable contenders. Had he retired and then returned without a tournament having taken place, then I would say there is some credibility, but since his title had already been vacated and a successor determined, then his claim to any lineal title really becomes meaningless. That’s the problem with any discussion of a lineal title as well, since it’s really a matter of how you define the lineage.

I'm with you on this.

Ali was no longer linear champ against Holmes due to his retirement.

Sorry but could you imagine of Foreman retired linear champ, and then ame back 30 years later?

It would throw everything off. If youre retired, and out for a year (that's when the sanctioning orgs typically remove a fighter), you've vacated all your titles and championships, imo.

Holmes did establish himself on pure dominance however (linear or not).

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 13 Jan 2007, 08:31

a small asterisk to linear or lineal champions is one of judgement. If for some reason the "man who beat the man" leaves the picture without having lost his championship status the process begins anew as with John Sullivan. Concensus is then achieved by the work turned in by the young turks until it is believed there is a new credible champion. Then we simply follow the man who beat the man once again.

The belts are complete red herrings in my estimation though they clearly help build concensus. Notice I say concensus....as it will never likely be unanimous. So if you bring enough belts together I suppose at some point you will be the new state of the art of your weight class, bringing clarity to the picture once again. But the belt system also allows for pretty big problems in this area that I don't need to articulate here.

barry · Post by **barry** » 14 Jan 2007, 10:56

>>>Rocchigiani was illegally stripped of the WBC belt, and Michalczewski was unconscionably stripped of the WBA and IBF belts.<<<

Is that what you call it when supposed champions absolutely refuse to fight the number one ranked contenders...unconscionably stripped? Or it is alright to strip Jones of the WBC title and call Roccighiani champion, but DM and Roccighiani getting stripped stripped is wrong...LOL!!! Jones stepped up and fought the top ranked light heavyweights that DM refused to face, so whiule Jones was fighting true top ranked fighters DM went about his usual business of fighting third-rate opponents, or do you consider the likes of Muslim Biarslanov to be quality opposition? It works like this...a fighter wins the belts...he is champion...champioin fights the best available competition based on rankings of those belts...when champion resuses to meet those ranked opponents and chooses instead to face journeymen light heavyweights instead of top rated light heavyweights champion gets stripped...there is no better example of this than DM. Chosing to fight the weakest opposition and 175 belt holder has ever faced while holding on to the lame-WBO belt, the org that rubbed DM's nuts in just the way he liked.

And please stop with the fornicating nonsense about how he was stripped because he didn't fight in 30 days...that bullshit...he had 30 days to set a match with the number one contender, the bout could have been six months down the road...and DM was not stripped of the IBF belt...he dropped that belt, just like Jones did with the WBC belt, because they forced DM to set a match with William Guthrie within 90 days...thats set a match, not fight, which DM wanted no part of so he dropped the belt and fought Nicky Piper followed by Darren Zenner, Andrea Magi and Mark Prince...instead of setting matchs with Guthrie, or Lou Del Valle. So Roy Jones comes along and beats the fighters that DM refused to face!

Complain all you want about Jones, but at least try to get the facts straight before yapping about it!!!

cosand · Post by **cosand** » 15 Jan 2007, 07:46

Definition of “Lineal champion”

A meaningless term that is used by some boxing fans either to bolster the image of a favorite fighter, discredit other fighters, to try to find logic in a flawed system that defies all logic, or to inject half baked quasi analysis into a boxing discussion.

IE: "Dad...Herbie Hide won a title from Tommy Morrison, so by definition, didnt that make him a Lineal champion for the time he held it" ?

"Yes Son, (sigh) it did."

cosand · Post by **cosand** » 15 Jan 2007, 09:40

Decagon

Joined: 28 Sep 2005
Posts: 4517

Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 1:19 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's stupid, and you wrote part of it on your word processor, probably because you had trouble spelling "definition."

Not "stupid", just taking a ridiculous issue to its most ridiculous conclusion.
Reality check time:
There hasn’t been more then a handful, if any "lineal champions" by the true definition of the term in boxing for a quarter of a century
The last time we saw one in the HW division was when Foremen beat Moorer. (Go figure)

My other point was, It is amusing as hell how this term is used by some (And I don’t include you in this) as full blown pseudo intellect.

Reminds me of some politicos I knew in college who had an IQ of about 94, but used to toss around terms like "proletariat", "reactionary" and "asseveration". They had no idea what they really meant; they would just regurgitate them when they needed to simulate credibility.

.

barry · Post by **barry** » 15 Jan 2007, 13:56

Dec---You have never given any evidence on anything you have ever commented on in this forum...assuming and guessing does not count!!!

>>>That's stupid, and you wrote part of it on your word processor, probably because you had trouble spelling "definition."<<<

What's stupid is that you take issue with someone's grammar on an internet message board, when you you have been made to look the fool about boxing...which happens a hell of a lot in your case!!!

>>>You need to do more research. Jones wasn't stripped of the WBC title; he relinquished it.<<<

Being that you are too stupid to realize...DM relinquishing the title and Jones relinquishing the title is the exact same thing idiot. I know you're stupid to old time boxing, but I figured you might have a little sense to modern boxing...guess I was wrong...but then again...you're the guy who called Stanley Ketchel a 160 pound version of John Ruiz and also claimed that the feather-fisted Winky Wright would absolutely destroy Jim Corbett and bob Fitzsimmons, which those comments pretty much sum up your intelligence, or excuse me...lack there of!!!

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 15 Jan 2007, 14:03

"Lineal champion" is a meaningless and, as a consequence, overrated concept.

It would mean something if the best fighters were indeed lining up for the "lineal" crown. But they are not -- they are lining up for WBC and WBA crowns, corrupt as these organizations may be. The reason being: you can make money of and attract interest with a WBC belt, but not with a "lineal" title claim.

So whether DM was lineal or not does not really matter. He was the #2 l-h for years who got treated badly by a couple of federatons and who, very unfortuantely and partly as a consequence, never fought the #1 l-h -- with both fighters probably sharing the blame in equal parts.

Lineal Champions

Lineal Champions

Re: Lineal Champions

re

re

Re: re