Lineal vs Traditional

[Marchegiano]

What is the lineal title? The title that goes back to Sullivan at least? I'd think there'd be no one more suited to answer this question than myself given not only am I totally aware of every HW title fight that has taken place in boxing history, but, I'm capable of speaking to the atmosphere leading up to those fights.

However, as I read others interpretation of what lineal is I start to question myself. Is lineal truly a reflection of Sullivan's era in any regard? Or is lineal simply a niche fan obscurity that is reflective of fan consensus or majority rule amongst the hardcore or avid fans now made popular by Tyson Fury?

Let's take retirement for example. I would classically tell you a lineal isn't released when retiring, it's simply the retired lineal and the second they come back is the second the retired portion drops from their title. I'd point to Corbett as proof.

That's true if lineal is reflective of the title Corbet owned, but, lineal doesn't really reflect the time or traditions when there was no sanctioning bodies. It reflects fans reaction to having two champions because of sanctioning bodies.

In that regard, one can point to say Ali, and point out when he retired. Because sanctioning bodies these days have sway. Because people who argue over who is lineal claim sanctioning body accolades make them lineal. Some claim Ali was not lineal upon his return but rather upon his victory. I was not around in the 70s. I can not say who the fans saw as lineal or even how popular the term was, but, if the fans said Ali was not lineal until he won then that is lineal tradition for you BUT not actually traditional boxing tradition for how to deal with a returning champion.


So, why don't we actually take control of the situation and lay out for the first time what fan consensus is on lineal.

Let's get some ground work done. Should lineal be reflective of Sullivan's era in its traditions and customs or should it be reflective of the era it was actually birthed in, when the NBA and NYSAC crowned two different champions and the fans became upset and crowned only one?

Those two points in lineal history set two totally different foundations for guidelines.

That's not to say they don't both have overlap, it is the details of situations that make them different. They are both a fan consensus idea, they both primarily function off man who beat the man, and they both demand a singular champion.

Lineal demands singular champions per weight division. The traditional titles do not.

Traditional titles can not be lost except by in the ring, the lineal title apparently can be lost by retirement, drugs, and who they defend against.

There are differences in the traditions sited by Tyson and the reality of how the original two champion reaction went down. Y'all got to pick a lane and stick with it.

Should lineal be reflective of 70s fans' moods or boxing traditions that go back to sullivan?

Does it even matter? Would you rather argue forever and never have anything clarified?

[filup79]

Floyd was lineal, as soon as he retired they stripped him and made Manny vs Bradley lineal. Fury for some reason is still lineal after all the bs he's put on himself. Only ESPN talks about Fury being lineal constantly but dont mention other lineal champs

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

It’s the man who beat the man...

Or in a case there isn’t a man to beat it’s when 1 faces 2.

IMO, Fury never truly relinquished the lineal title, nor was the lineage re-established with 1 facing 2 during his hiatus. Until defeated Fury is still lineal champion from my perspective.

[HeadBodyBodyBody]

It’s the man who beat the man...

Or in a case there isn’t a man to beat it’s when 1 faces 2.

IMO, Fury never truly relinquished the lineal title, nor was the lineage re-established with 1 facing 2 during his hiatus. Until defeated Fury is still lineal champion from my perspective.

Nice and succint

If AJ and Wilder would've fought during Fury's hiatus, then we would have a legitimate new lineal champion. But they didn't, so we don't

[HeadBodyBodyBody]

What is the lineal title? The title that goes back to Sullivan at least? I'd think there'd be no one more suited to answer this question than myself given not only am I totally aware of every HW title fight that has taken place in boxing history, but, I'm capable of speaking to the atmosphere leading up to those fights.

However, as I read others interpretation of what lineal is I start to question myself. Is lineal truly a reflection of Sullivan's era in any regard? Or is lineal simply a niche fan obscurity that is reflective of fan consensus or majority rule amongst the hardcore or avid fans now made popular by Tyson Fury?

Let's take retirement for example. I would classically tell you a lineal isn't released when retiring, it's simply the retired lineal and the second they come back is the second the retired portion drops from their title. I'd point to Corbett as proof.

That's true if lineal is reflective of the title Corbet owned, but, lineal doesn't really reflect the time or traditions when there was no sanctioning bodies. It reflects fans reaction to having two champions because of sanctioning bodies.

In that regard, one can point to say Ali, and point out when he retired. Because sanctioning bodies these days have sway. Because people who argue over who is lineal claim sanctioning body accolades make them lineal. Some claim Ali was not lineal upon his return but rather upon his victory. I was not around in the 70s. I can not say who the fans saw as lineal or even how popular the term was, but, if the fans said Ali was not lineal until he won then that is lineal tradition for you BUT not actually traditional boxing tradition for how to deal with a returning champion.


So, why don't we actually take control of the situation and lay out for the first time what fan consensus is on lineal.

Let's get some ground work done. Should lineal be reflective of Sullivan's era in its traditions and customs or should it be reflective of the era it was actually birthed in, when the NBA and NYSAC crowned two different champions and the fans became upset and crowned only one?

Those two points in lineal history set two totally different foundations for guidelines.

That's not to say they don't both have overlap, it is the details of situations that make them different. They are both a fan consensus idea, they both primarily function off man who beat the man, and they both demand a singular champion.

Lineal demands singular champions per weight division. The traditional titles do not.

Traditional titles can not be lost except by in the ring, the lineal title apparently can be lost by retirement, drugs, and who they defend against.

There are differences in the traditions sited by Tyson and the reality of how the original two champion reaction went down. Y'all got to pick a lane and stick with it.

Should lineal be reflective of 70s fans' moods or boxing traditions that go back to sullivan?

Does it even matter? Would you rather argue forever and never have anything clarified?

I think you're right that some form of substantive conceptual analysis of what the lineal title means would be very helpful. FWIW, I'm not sure that asking boxing fans would be the best way to do this. It would be an interesting investigation, perhaps, but this method could not be an ultimate arbiter, since you imply that we ought to be looking for consistent principles, yet the boxing fans of today and the boxing fans of yesterday probably have different ideas of what lineal means. I like the argument you make for the fans being in control, though, since the lineal champion only became important when there were two or more "champions" to choose from. The danger is just that you might end up with consensuses that have been differently achieved across timepoints, which then leads to a further question of legitimacy.

On the other hand, taking 'lineal' to a root definition, I think it refers to 'The Man' in a division. For example, if boxer A had clearly suffered from corrupt scorecards and lost on paper to boxer B, I should think that boxer B's lineal status would be in jeopardy. Now, who decides that the scorecards were corrupt or not? I think there ought to be some form of barrier for the dumbass casual who doesn't know what they are looking at, and also for those with agendas.

[QueensburyRules]

What is the lineal title? The title that goes back to Sullivan at least? I'd think there'd be no one more suited to answer this question than myself given not only am I totally aware of every HW title fight that has taken place in boxing history, but, I'm capable of speaking to the atmosphere leading up to those fights.

However, as I read others interpretation of what lineal is I start to question myself. Is lineal truly a reflection of Sullivan's era in any regard? Or is lineal simply a niche fan obscurity that is reflective of fan consensus or majority rule amongst the hardcore or avid fans now made popular by Tyson Fury?

Let's take retirement for example. I would classically tell you a lineal isn't released when retiring, it's simply the retired lineal and the second they come back is the second the retired portion drops from their title. I'd point to Corbett as proof.

That's true if lineal is reflective of the title Corbet owned, but, lineal doesn't really reflect the time or traditions when there was no sanctioning bodies. It reflects fans reaction to having two champions because of sanctioning bodies.

In that regard, one can point to say Ali, and point out when he retired. Because sanctioning bodies these days have sway. Because people who argue over who is lineal claim sanctioning body accolades make them lineal. Some claim Ali was not lineal upon his return but rather upon his victory. I was not around in the 70s. I can not say who the fans saw as lineal or even how popular the term was, but, if the fans said Ali was not lineal until he won then that is lineal tradition for you BUT not actually traditional boxing tradition for how to deal with a returning champion.


So, why don't we actually take control of the situation and lay out for the first time what fan consensus is on lineal.

Let's get some ground work done. Should lineal be reflective of Sullivan's era in its traditions and customs or should it be reflective of the era it was actually birthed in, when the NBA and NYSAC crowned two different champions and the fans became upset and crowned only one?

Those two points in lineal history set two totally different foundations for guidelines.

That's not to say they don't both have overlap, it is the details of situations that make them different. They are both a fan consensus idea, they both primarily function off man who beat the man, and they both demand a singular champion.

Lineal demands singular champions per weight division. The traditional titles do not.

Traditional titles can not be lost except by in the ring, the lineal title apparently can be lost by retirement, drugs, and who they defend against.

There are differences in the traditions sited by Tyson and the reality of how the original two champion reaction went down. Y'all got to pick a lane and stick with it.

Should lineal be reflective of 70s fans' moods or boxing traditions that go back to sullivan?

Does it even matter? Would you rather argue forever and never have anything clarified?

- -Lineal heavy died with JJeffries retirement.

FACT!

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

- -Lineal heavy died with JJeffries retirement.

FACT!

That’s can’t be correct either way.

Firstly a new lineage was established in Jeffries absence as Marvin Hart knocked out Jack Root in a rematch. (Random fact: Jeffries actually refereed that fight)

Secondly, if you still consider Jeffries “the man”, as he had not been defeated, he actually came back and was knocked out by Jack Johnson, who had established himself as lineal champion by defeating Tommy Burns.

[Eff Pandas]

I like the sound of lineal, but in practice I dislike it. You have no quality control on contenders. One of the biggest issues in boxing to me is quality control. So you can easily get a Foreman like run after he beat Moorer.

But as to the question I think neither option fits my preference. I think boxing is far too fickle to allow retired or inactive fighters to retain their lineal status with or without a win.

So to me the question is when does a retired or inactive fighter lose a lineal belt. I think case 1 is when he retires. Any retirement announcement should include a line about giving away the lineal title. Case 2 is when inactivity is the issue & the fighter intends to fight, but cant for one reason or another. If its an injury I think the fighter should be given 18mos-24mos to be able to get back into the ring & after that the belt is vacant. If its another issue causing the inactivity I think you gotta take it on a case by case basis, but if a boxer isnt going to be able to reasonably defend the belt within a year or when that becomes known I think you make the belt vacant.

[Marchegiano]

That’s can’t be correct either way.

Firstly a new lineage was established in Jeffries absence as Marvin Hart knocked out Jack Root in a rematch. (Random fact: Jeffries actually refereed that fight)

Secondly, if you still consider Jeffries “the man”, as he had not been defeated, he actually came back and was knocked out by Jack Johnson, who had established himself as lineal champion by defeating Tommy Burns.

That's kind of exactly what I'm getting at. Y'all explain things, and, well, you're wrong. You're not far off, but, you are wrong. Your explanation is a popular one and since lineal has always been, and I do mean in both the traditional sense and the popularize 70s sense, always been a popular consensus title you're not actually wrong, just historically wrong.

So, okay, maybe wrong is a harsh term but your understanding of lineal from Jefferies' perspective is wrong, without any doubt.

Jim would not be the first man to simply elect the next championship match. It's actually called "champion's prerogative" and it goes back to Figg. The very first champion after Figg is a champion by selection. Or rather, Figg says, I am retired, but my boy here is the best man you can fight, when he whoops you we will call him champion, and he does and they did.

Outside of electing the number one and two champion's prerogative also dictated who the champion would face for the title. By the 1820s the take on all challengers model was already flipped on its head and by the 30s HW champions were having fixed fights while claiming they don't need to fight a man the public wants because the public can't spot talent. they even go has far as using "englishness" as a reason to avoid a contender.

Anyway, I'm sorry, I ramble a bit, my point though was that in NO way did Jeffries see it as starting a new lineage. Man who beat the man is the obvious way. In his day, number one and number two by his selection was also an obvious choice.

Bare knuckle era boxing has ten unbeaten HW champions, of them I'm pretty sure at least 8 times in bare knuckle history the champion did it.

At least once before him in Queensberry history, Corbett did it.

He's not electing a new king for a new lineage, he's not thinking about it like that at all, he's electing the new king to carry his lineage.

I know, this is a nitpicking thing in the context of just a forum chat, but, when outlining exactly what lineal is and why and the history behind it one has to choose a lane.

Because I can tell you all about Jem Ward/Deaf Burke or Corbett/Maher or Jeffries/Hart but you didn't get the idea that there are new lineages in lineal from any of those men. Not one, ever, not once.

They saw it as the unbroken chain of kings. They thought of being elected by the unbeaten champion as equal to actually beating him. He was passing the torch to you and calling you his equal. It's a massive honor. A much bigger honor than simply helping you establish your own lineage.

Again, I get that it's a ***** thing that's tiny to focus on, but, again, as you write the story of lineal you do have to pick a lane...or don't I guess.

This whole "new lineage" thing is about as old as "lineal" itself. Some terms those guys just did not use and would not understand what we're talking about today.

Does an honest reporter and historian report what the traditional meaning was or does one focus on the popular rebrand?

One has a pretty clear and easy to understand history. The other is much more popular and we are talking about a populous title.

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

That's kind of exactly what I'm getting at. Y'all explain things, and, well, you're wrong. You're not far off, but, you are wrong. Your explanation is a popular one and since lineal has always been, and I do mean in both the traditional sense and the popularize 70s sense, always been a popular consensus title you're not actually wrong, just historically wrong.

So, okay, maybe wrong is a harsh term but your understanding of lineal from Jefferies' perspective is wrong, without any doubt.

Jim would not be the first man to simply elect the next championship match. It's actually called "champion's prerogative" and it goes back to Figg. The very first champion after Figg is a champion by selection. Or rather, Figg says, I am retired, but my boy here is the best man you can fight, when he whoops you we will call him champion, and he does and they did.

Outside of electing the number one and two champion's prerogative also dictated who the champion would face for the title. By the 1820s the take on all challengers model was already flipped on its head and by the 30s HW champions were having fixed fights while claiming they don't need to fight a man the public wants because the public can't spot talent. they even go has far as using "englishness" as a reason to avoid a contender.

Anyway, I'm sorry, I ramble a bit, my point though was that in NO way did Jeffries see it as starting a new lineage. Man who beat the man is the obvious way. In his day, number one and number two by his selection was also an obvious choice.

Bare knuckle era boxing has ten unbeaten HW champions, of them I'm pretty sure at least 8 times in bare knuckle history the champion did it.

At least once before him in Queensberry history, Corbett did it.

He's not electing a new king for a new lineage, he's not thinking about it like that at all, he's electing the new king to carry his lineage.

I know, this is a nitpicking thing in the context of just a forum chat, but, when outlining exactly what lineal is and why and the history behind it one has to choose a lane.

Because I can tell you all about Jem Ward/Deaf Burke or Corbett/Maher or Jeffries/Hart but you didn't get the idea that there are new lineages in lineal from any of those men. Not one, ever, not once.

They saw it as the unbroken chain of kings. They thought of being elected by the unbeaten champion as equal to actually beating him. He was passing the torch to you and calling you his equal. It's a massive honor. A much bigger honor than simply helping you establish your own lineage.

Again, I get that it's a ***** thing that's tiny to focus on, but, again, as you write the story of lineal you do have to pick a lane...or don't I guess.

This whole "new lineage" thing is about as old as "lineal" itself. Some terms those guys just did not use and would not understand what we're talking about today.

Does an honest reporter and historian report what the traditional meaning was or does one focus on the popular rebrand?

One has a pretty clear and easy to understand history. The other is much more popular and we are talking about a populous title.

Sorry my man but that is way too long...

Wrong in what sense?

I was just pointing out that the lineal championship couldn’t have died with Jeffries.

As it was either re-established between Hack and Root, and then eventually found its way to Johnson.

Or taken directly from Jeffries once he returned and was defeated by Johnson.