My new Boxing History Quiz

[BattlingNelson]

why-wlad-isnt-king

http://www.thesweetscience.com/news/...wlad-isnt-king

Do you agree with this?

[jas]

Do you agree with this?

based on inconsistency from Ring. they went against tradition. and lineage, by its very nature, is something that follows on. consistency is paramount.

[TBear]

People often consider the Ring champ as lineal. Wiki even refers the Ring champ as "their own lineal champ". There is a difference however between what was originally lineal and Ring Champ.
For example: The Ring actually officially recognized Larry Holmes as Ring champion the night he beat Leroy Jones because on the same night Mike Weaver beat John Tate and Holmes had beaten Weaver in a championship bout.(unrelated but Jones was also the last man to beat Weaver before Holmes)
At the same time Holmes did not claim the "lineal" belt for that, he claimed it on the night he beat Muhammad Ali, the last lineal champion.

In 2002 The Ring Magazine was frustrated that the majority of "Ring Belts" were vacant and decided to name champions based on number one fighting number two(based on their own rankings). In recent times many
fans(Including Cliff Roid) have associated this with what was and has been referred to lineal champion.

However lineal champion actually came from a time where there was only one champ in nearly every division. Perhaps fans felt the same frustration that the Ring felt and wanted to have champions or they gave credit to the magazine's recognized champions, but the idea of naming a fighter lineal champion while they hold only a piece of any title goes against what lineal originally meant, no matter how unpopular this old tradition might be in here today.

Wlad deserves the Ring title and I would definitely agree but to name him lineal champion because he beat the number two contender in Chagaev while Vitali was still fighting and the WBC titlist goes against what the idea of lineal really was.

[Anthony342]

He knocked him down at the ropes but not through or out of the ring. Funny that I watched it just last night.

Funny, since the announcer here says "Louis sails through the ropes" and it sure looks like he was knocked through the ropes as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2FOqDTK7W0

[Anthony342]

People often consider the Ring champ as lineal. Wiki even refers the Ring champ as "their own lineal champ". There is a difference however between what was originally lineal and Ring Champ.
For example: The Ring actually officially recognized Larry Holmes as Ring champion the night he beat Leroy Jones because on the same night Mike Weaver beat John Tate and Holmes had beaten Weaver in a championship bout.(unrelated but Jones was also the last man to beat Weaver before Holmes)
At the same time Holmes did not claim the "lineal" belt for that, he claimed it on the night he beat Muhammad Ali, the last lineal champion.

In 2002 The Ring Magazine was frustrated that the majority of "Ring Belts" were vacant and decided to name champions based on number one fighting number two(based on their own rankings). In recent times many
fans(Including Cliff Roid) have associated this with what was and has been referred to lineal champion.

However lineal champion actually came from a time where there was only one champ in nearly every division. Perhaps fans felt the same frustration that the Ring felt and wanted to have champions or they gave credit to the magazine's recognized champions, but the idea of naming a fighter lineal champion while they hold only a piece of any title goes against what lineal originally meant, no matter how unpopular this old tradition might be in here today.

Wlad deserves the Ring title and I would definitely agree but to name him lineal champion because he beat the number two contender in Chagaev while Vitali was still fighting and the WBC titlist goes against what the idea of lineal really was.

Well then, with Vitali now retired, what if Wlad then wins the WBC belt at some point. Wouldn't that then, according to that tradition, make him leneal champion. Lineal is supposed to mean you beat the fighter who previously held the belt that was the best in that weight class. I believe it's referred to as someone who "beat the guy who beat the guy".

[TBear]

Well then, with Vitali now retired, what if Wlad then wins the WBC belt at some point. Wouldn't that then, according to that tradition, make him leneal champion. Lineal is supposed to mean you beat the fighter who previously held the belt that was the best in that weight class. I believe it's referred to as someone who "beat the guy who beat the guy".

If Wlad beats the WBC champion there would be one and historically the line would start.

[Scott9945]

Too bad he could not fight Vitali Klitschko and make it legitimate. I don't blame him because they were brothers but there will always be that question.

So if Wladimir beats the winner of Stiverne-Arreola for Vitali's title would that get it done?

[TBear]

So if Wladimir beats the winner of Stiverne-Arreola for Vitali's title would that get it done?

It would start there. If there is no linage or lineal champion it would start with the first undisputed champion.

Remember Mayweather was recognized as lineal champ when he beat Baldomir. Well Baldomir beat Judah, who beat Cory Spinks. Spinks started the line(lineal) by unifying the titles with Mayorga who had two.
If you trace all three titles, they were vacant awhile back but Spinks was considered the lineal champion.

However if the line is still alive, undisputed won't take it from the lineal champion. Such was the case when Mike Tyson unified all the belts but still had to beat Michael Spinks for the honor.

[jas]

It would start there. If there is no linage or lineal champion it would start with the first undisputed champion.

Remember Mayweather was recognized as lineal champ when he beat Baldomir. Well Baldomir beat Judah, who beat Cory Spinks. Spinks started the line(lineal) by unifying the titles with Mayorga who had two.
If you trace all three titles, they were vacant awhile back but Spinks was considered the lineal champion.

However if the line is still alive, undisputed won't take it from the lineal champion. Such was the case when Mike Tyson unified all the belts but still had to beat Michael Spinks for the honor.

there is a difference between linear and lineal. linear is being undisputed across the board , holding all 4 major world title belts. back in the days they didn't have 4 belts so how did they crown an undisputed champion?

[TBear]

, holding all 4 major world title belts. back in the days they didn't have 4 belts so how did they crown an undisputed champion?

When there is only one champion, what's to dispute?

there is a difference between linear and lineal.

"Lineal" is correct, though a lot of us get away with using either.