Why Does No One Talk About The Lineal HW Title Anymore?

[The Big Dunn]

Honestly, I considered Fury's lineal claim invalid after his first retirement. It wasn't until he knocked out Wilder for the TBRB Championship, Ring belt, and WBC belt that I considered him champion again. But then he "retired" again and Usyk beat Joshua for the TBRB and Ring Championships, so as far as I'm concerned Usyk has already been the real lineal champion since that point.

When Joe Louis retired for 1.5 years, his lineal claim was ended and he had to fight Ezzard Charles for the vacant lineal championship upon his return. Charles won the fight to become champion, but that's not the point. The point is if Joe Louis wasn't allowed to keep his lineal championship through a retirement, neither should Fury.

Solid post. Agree with you.

You know ESPN is gonna make every TR boxer look better if they can.

[TheOneAboveAll]

Why Does No One Talk About The Lineal HW Title Anymore?

It was a big thing when Tyson Fury came from retirement. Here was the great "Lineal Champion" against the hard-hitting WBC Champion in Wilder. Fury fans couldn't shut up about how much the Lineal belt meant and the history behind it.

Now Usyk has won it - no one cares about it. It's like it doesn't exist.... People seem to worry more about the IBF belt possibly not being up for grabs in the rematch

Why?

Because a lineal champion doesn't exist at all, in any division in boxing. Did you think that Fury was really the man to beat the man going all the way back?

[TheOneAboveAll]

Honestly, I considered Fury's lineal claim invalid after his first retirement. It wasn't until he knocked out Wilder for the TBRB Championship, Ring belt, and WBC belt that I considered him champion again. But then he "retired" again and Usyk beat Joshua for the TBRB and Ring Championships, so as far as I'm concerned Usyk has already been the real lineal champion since that point.

When Joe Louis retired for 1.5 years, his lineal claim was ended and he had to fight Ezzard Charles for the vacant lineal championship upon his return. Charles won the fight to become champion, but that's not the point. The point is if Joe Louis wasn't allowed to keep his lineal championship through a retirement, neither should Fury.

This makes no sense. A true lineal championship status cannot be revoked by an organization. If you are the man to beat the former man, you are the man. That's how it works. No politics needed.

[famicommander]

This makes no sense. A true lineal championship status cannot be revoked by an organization. If you are the man to beat the former man, you are the man. That's how it works. No politics needed.

It's not about being revoked. When you retire, you are no longer the champion. That's how it has always been. Otherwise Lennox Lewis could unretire and claim he's still the champion, since nobody beat him.

Again, Joe Louis retired in 1949. Less than a year later and only 1.5 years after his last title defense he unretired to fight Ezzard Charles. The lineal championship was considered vacant. Charles won the fight and became champion, but if Louis had won he'd be considered a 2X heavyweight champion and it wouldn't have counted as an extension of the reign that ended after his second victory over Jersey Joe Walcott.

[crimsonfalcon07]

Lineal has been broken so many times by retirements etc that's it's largely symbolic. Some people place a lot of value on it. I don't. Says everything that Naoya Inoue only has 2 lineal championships despite beating the consensus top guys in 4 divisions. Junior fly was vacant since 2011, so there wasn't anyone to beat, and Nietes and Ioka were ranked above Hernandez by Ring, so I can forgive that one, but Narvaez was #1 at junior bantam, and that lineal title had been vacant since the retirement of Masamori Tokuyama in 2006. The only reason it wasn't given to Inoue was that he wasn't highly ranked enough at the time to count, because he goes straight for the best available fighters. And he then racked up 7 straight defenses and spent the next 4 years ranked #1, but apparently that's not enough to be considered lineal. .

Same deal with Bam v Sunny not being considered for lineal or Ring because they didn't want to value Bam's achievements at 115 for his rank at 112. But does ANYONE think Bam isn't the man at 112?

It's arbitrary and fundamentally meaningless IMO. Just a marketing trinket made up by boxing media.

[TheOneAboveAll]

It's not about being revoked. When you retire, you are no longer the champion. That's how it has always been. Otherwise Lennox Lewis could unretire and claim he's still the champion, since nobody beat him.

Again, Joe Louis retired in 1949. Less than a year later and only 1.5 years after his last title defense he unretired to fight Ezzard Charles. The lineal championship was considered vacant. Charles won the fight and became champion, but if Louis had won he'd be considered a 2X heavyweight champion and it wouldn't have counted as an extension of the reign that ended after his second victory over Jersey Joe Walcott.

Honestly, you're not grasping the concept of lineal champion. It's really quite simple - and easy to break. Lennox Lewis is and always will be the lineal champion going back to Marciano (who also retired as champion). Tyson Fury, if his fans truly want to claim lineal champion status, owned a lineage that goes back to one (1) previous champion (Wlad Klitschko). Klitschko himself began to be regarded as the next "lineal' champion" 5 years after Lennox Lewis retired as champion. Klitschko unified enough of the organizational belts (all but the WBC belt) to be regarded as the consensus top HW champion, but he was never a lineal HW champion himself, so that level of historical status wasn't passed on to Fury.

[famicommander]

Honestly, you're not grasping the concept of lineal champion. It's really quite simple - and easy to break. Lennox Lewis is and always will be the lineal champion going back to Marciano (who also retired as champion). Tyson Fury, if his fans truly want to claim lineal champion status, owned a lineage that goes back to one (1) previous champion (Wlad Klitschko). Klitschko himself began to be regarded as the next "lineal' champion" 5 years after Lennox Lewis retired as champion. Klitschko unified enough of the organizational belts (all but the WBC belt) to be regarded as the consensus top HW champion, but he was never a lineal HW champion himself, so that level of historical status wasn't passed on to Fury.

I guess you need another history lesson.

Muhammad Ali retired in 1979 and his lineal claim ended then. A new lineage was started after he unretired and Larry Holmes beat him for the vacant championship, in exactly the same way that Ezzard Charles defeated Joe Louis for the vacant championship.

Some people considered Klitschko lineal after the Ibragimov win. Some after the Chagaev win (Ring), some stragglers after the Povetkin win (TBRB). But the point is, everybody agreed he was the lineal heavyweight champion of the world by the time Tyson Fury beat him.

Just like everyone agrees Usyk is now the lineal champion, even if they disagree about whether Fury is a 1X or 2X lineal champion due to his retirements.

[Eff Pandas]

The lineal champion is as bs as the belt groups trinkets. Once you win the lineal belt you can fight bs guys til there are no bs guys to fight. It sounds cool, its got a cool looking lineage with few gaps at HW. But its still a bs concept in practice.

As Ricky Bobby's dad said, if you aren't first you're last. The only thing that says you're #1 is being #1. Often that is the guy whos lineal champ. Often that is the guy with more belts. But a prerequisite to being #1 doesn't require either. So basically no one should gaf about it.

Hell even tho Fury was the lineal champ plenty of ppl had Usyk above Fury PREVIOUS to Saturday night.

Belts mean fook all. They are great to put on your wall. But all that matters at the end of the day is your resume proving you are #1 not awards.

[Willow The Wisp]

I suppose that Boxing chatter and Boxing history are adjacent topics.
If you peruse a message board such as this one, you can see the teens - 20's - 30s generations displaying the ADD / ADHD for which they are famous, have little time for verified knowledge. History is the proper recording of what is known to have happened. It's study and acknowledgment is a great deal more 'Academic' a pursuit than merely hashing out recent fight results and projecting fiercely held (and occasionally cogent) opionions.

To anyone who is into boxing deep enough; the sport's 3,374 year history as a fomal sport, with its basic form nearly unchanged through today, is one of the most meticulously recorded social conventions of the human species, and is a fascinating field of study.
For those who are content to simply dip their toe in the water, the news clippings and fanatical banter is enough context for watching the fights.

To be clear, however; the linial Heavyweight Boxing Championship is the oldest, richest, most meaningful and intercultural title in all arenas of entertainment. It segues neatly from the earliest civilizations to the modern age, and is found to be acknowledged everywhere.

The current crop of "World title sanctioning bodies" are part of a for-profit enterprise that would sooner have casual fans forget all of that, and hoodwink young fans into thinking that it is THEY who get to decide who the Heavyweight Champion is.
But History provides the antidote to that skillful misdirection, for those willing to engage in learning, because title lineage is uncorrupted, and there for the knowing.

There will be those, of course; who might claim that this "History doesn't matter", or that they themselves (somehow) "know better".
In them, regardless of the quality or frequency of their posting here, we are reminded that intellectual lightweights and casual observers might love the purity of Boxing too.


Forvanta- Phorbas- Aries- Herakles- Tydeus- Polydeusus- Theseus- Onomastos- Diappos- Komaios- Pythagoras- Tisandros- Praxidamas- Glaucos- Philon- Ikkos- Diognetos- Euthymos- Theagenes- Euthymos- Menalkes- Diagoras- Akousilous- Alkainetos- Kleomachos- Eukles- Demarchos- Phormion- Damoxenidas- Labax- Aristion- Philammon- Asamon- Mys- Satyros- Satyros- Archippos- Kallippos- Kleitomachus- Epitherses- Xenothemius- Agesarchos- Atyanas- Thaliarchos- Nikophon- Demokrates- Melankomas- Herakliedes- Marcus Tullius- Photion- Buck- Stokes- Flanders- Clarkson- Sutton- Figg- Pipes- Taylor- Broughton- Slack- Stevens- Meggs- Millsom- Jachau- Darts- Lyons- Darts- Corcoran- Sellers- Ferns- Johnson- Brian- Mendoza- Jackson- Owen- Bartholomew- Belcher- Pearce- Gully- Cribb- Spring- Cannon- Ward- Crawley- Ward- Burke- Thompson- Caunt- Ward- Caunt- Thompson- Perry- Broome- Paddock- Sayers- Hurst- Mace- King- Wormald- Mace- Coburn- Mace- Allen- Goss- Ryan- Sullivan- Corbett- Fitzsimmons- Jeffries- Hart- Burns- Johnson- Willard- Dempsey- Tunney- Schmelling- Sharkey- Carnera- Bear- Braddock- Louis- Charles- Walcott- Marciano- Patterson- Johansson- Patterson- Liston- Ali- Frazier- Foreman- Ali- L. Spinks- Ali- Holmes- M. Spinks- Tyson- Douglas- Holyfield- Bowe- Holyfield- Moorer- Foreman- Briggs- Lewis- Rachman- Lewis- W. Klitschko- Fury- Usyk.


That what's REAL.

[TheOneAboveAll]

I guess you need another history lesson.

Muhammad Ali retired in 1979 and his lineal claim ended then. A new lineage was started after he unretired and Larry Holmes beat him for the vacant championship, in exactly the same way that Ezzard Charles defeated Joe Louis for the vacant championship.

Some people considered Klitschko lineal after the Ibragimov win. Some after the Chagaev win (Ring), some stragglers after the Povetkin win (TBRB). But the point is, everybody agreed he was the lineal heavyweight champion of the world by the time Tyson Fury beat him.

Just like everyone agrees Usyk is now the lineal champion, even if they disagree about whether Fury is a 1X or 2X lineal champion due to his retirements.

Well, let's just keep educating each other. I insist that you are completely misunderstanding the concept of lineal champion. A lineal champion is the lineal champion until he is defeated or permanently retires. If he retires, a new lineage can be established, but its not the lineage that is implied by the title.

To your point above, Muhammad Ali won the WBA title after beating Leon Spinks in the rematch. Ali previously held both WBA and WBC titles before the first Spinks fight but was stripped of the WBC belt for taking the Spinks fight instead of fighting the WBC's #1 contender (Ken Norton). While Ali was dealing with the two Spinks fights, Larry Holmes won the WBC belt by beating Norton. As you note, Ali retired after regaining his WBA belt from Spinks, but he returned two years later to face Larry Holmes for Holmes' WBC belt. As everyone knows Larry beat Ali up and retained his title, so he continues the lineage.

The notion that lineages are vacated upon temporary retirements or other breaks in activity is absurd. The lineal championship is not a real thing to be managed by political organizations. Not sure why you struggle to understand this. You cannot be the man unless you beat the former man, and Larry Holmes did that.

None of these historical details really matter though. Our disagreement doesn't hinge on the details of the lineage, but rather the basic concept of lineage. There is no true lineal champion in the HW division or any other division in the sport, mostly because of retirements. Fury fans are deluded into thinking that the Gypsy King is the man who beat the man going back to Sullivan, but the reality is that his lineage goes back to one fighter.