You can't explain the history of champs only with the Lineal Title...

----

Not anymore. The classic lineage (man who beat the man) is useless since the 80s. We have to adapt to new times with a less rigid way of thinking.

For example, the 90s heavyweights have a classic lineage: Douglas, Holyfield, Bowe, Holyfield, Moorer, Foreman, Briggs and Lewis since 1998. However, Foreman wasn't seen as the man in 1996 and 1997. Briggs wasn't seen as the man in 1997. He was presented as "the challenger" against Lewis a year later. Nobody really cared about Briggs' lineal title. Is that what we want?

The history of the ABC beltholders is also confusing. During the 90s, even guys like McCall, Lewis in 1993, Schulz, etc, were "champions". The truth is that nobody saw them as the men.

So, the Lineal Championship is incorrect. But the ABC lineage is also incorrect, mainly because there can't be three or four champions in a single division.

I think the real Champions are decided by public opinion and nothing else. In the 90s, the lineage is correct until Foreman. Then, from 1995 to 1997, there is a mess and no one was really seen as "the champ". Holyfield was seen as the man for a couple years, and then Lewis after unifying in November 1999.

After seeing the cases of Briggs in 1997-1998, Erdei during the 90s, Juan Manuel Marquez in the lightweight division, I have to say that lineage isn't the solution.