So, how should we read the Heavyweight lineage?

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by Asterion, Sep 11, 2011.


  1. JN43

    JN43 Guest

    I thought a new linage started if one claimed all 4 belts and the person who was liner champ was retired.
     
  2. RUSKULL

    RUSKULL Loyal Member banned

    30,315
    8
    Dec 17, 2004
    Number 1 of course.
     
  3. speck

    speck Milky Way Resident Full Member

    2,064
    1
    Apr 3, 2010
    Both brothers hold the crown. Vitali will retire quite soon and Wlad will remain the only champ.
     
  4. Brickhaus

    Brickhaus Packs the house Full Member

    22,296
    5
    Mar 14, 2007
    #1, IMO. But if you want to be true about lineage, then it should really be a fifth option:

    Lewis
    Rahman (beat Lewis)
    Lewis
    Vacant
    Vitali (#1, beat #2 Sanders)
    Vacant

    I considered Wlad to be lineal after the Chagaev win, but I can certainly understand the argument that he's not (since he's never fought #2 Vitali).
     
  5. Brickhaus

    Brickhaus Packs the house Full Member

    22,296
    5
    Mar 14, 2007
    Nah, otherwise there would never be a lineal champ since the ABCs all just strip people randomly and give their belts to scrubs without fighting for them. These days, there are two possible ways to look at it - the winner of a #1 vs #2 fight, or the guy who has cleared out the division. Of course, can't become lineal if someone else already is, which is why Roy Jones was never lineal at 175.
     
  6. JN43

    JN43 Guest

    But who decides who is 1 and 2 its not always obvious. I still think if you have all 4 major belts you should be considered Lineal unless the lineal Champ is still fighting. But then again as you say there might be a better fighter without a belt. I guess there is no fool proof way if the lineage dies to form a new one in which everyone would agree.
     
  7. Briscoe

    Briscoe Active Member Full Member

    941
    6
    Sep 19, 2009
    How can Vitali be considered lineal since he never unified? He didn't beat the last lineal champ in Lennox.
     
  8. Brickhaus

    Brickhaus Packs the house Full Member

    22,296
    5
    Mar 14, 2007
    That's all well and good, but if you said that in order to be lineal champ you need to hold all four major belts, then the ONLY lineal champs in the last couple decades would have been Bernard Hopkins and Jermain Taylor (though there are a few more who would have had all four if not for people getting stripped and the like - Calzaghe, Michalczewski, Pavlik, Martinez).
     
  9. Brickhaus

    Brickhaus Packs the house Full Member

    22,296
    5
    Mar 14, 2007
    You don't need to unify to be lineal. If the two best guys fight each other, then the winner is lineal regardless of who holds what title. For example, the winner of Vazquez-Marquez II became the lineal champ, even though only Marquez held a belt, since it was the two top dogs fighting each other.

    Also, Juan Manuel Marquez became lineal champ at lightweight when he beat Casamayor (who was then the lineal champ) even though no belts were at stake, and it's not like anyone in that lineage ever unified either.
     
  10. Vidic

    Vidic Rest in Peace Manny Full Member

    13,207
    11
    Nov 23, 2010
    Unfortunately the last lineal Champ is Lennox. The brothers count as separate belt holders, not a singular entity.
     
  11. JN43

    JN43 Guest

    Pavlik was Lineal because he Beat JT who beat BHOP who created the new Lineal. Same with Martinez as he beat Pavlik. I can see your point its hard to obtain all 4 belts because mandatory s and stripping for stupid reasons but I also don't think creating a new lineage should be easy.
     
  12. Briscoe

    Briscoe Active Member Full Member

    941
    6
    Sep 19, 2009
    I always considered a unification as a way to re-establish a broken lineage. Maybe I picked that off from The Ring rules. I think their other stipulation is #1 vs. #2 establishes lineal champ.
     
  13. JoeAverage

    JoeAverage Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,150
    1
    Oct 26, 2008
  14. Larryboys

    Larryboys Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,648
    2
    Sep 6, 2008
    I don't see how the WBC title comes into who's lineal champion. It was the belt Lewis held at the end, but that was not what made him lineal champion, it was originally when he was WBC champ and beat Shannon Briggs who was the lineal champion. Riddick Bowe threw the WBC belt in a bin and the lineage didn't go with it, he kept it with the WBA and IBF titles. Vitali has no real claim to being a lineal champion other than having the Rings title, he didn't unify any titles and beat Corrie Sanders who was an aruable number 2 on the strength of nothing more than pulverising Wladimir.

    I'd say Wladimir started a new lineage either when he beat Ibragimov (to unify) of Chagaev (next best guy in the division). We'll probably never see a unidsputed champion again, it's almost impossible to hold onto the major titles, look at the WBA Wlad wins their belt and 2 months later they have it back in circulation.
     
  15. Brickhaus

    Brickhaus Packs the house Full Member

    22,296
    5
    Mar 14, 2007
    If it were easy, there would be more than only a few at the moment. The only undisputed lineals are Martinez, Marquez and Pong, while some people consider Wlad to be, and one of Hopkins or Erdei is at 175, but even that's still disputed.

    Edit: Forgot about Segura, but he may have vacated by moving up. Not sure.