If Schwarz beats Fury would Schwarz be the lineal champion?

How is Fury NOT the lineal champ? Who cares if he retired? There was no clear champion while he retired. I believe after Lewis retired, Wlad was declared the lineal champ years later because there was no clarity as to who the real champ was.

 

No. There hasn't actually been a lineal champ since Lewis.

 

If there was still a lineal champion then he would lose his claim once he got a drug ban, or declared himself retired.
If he then becomes active again then what? It’s not something that I believe in one way or another, but the fact that it is so easy to dispute goes against everything that boxing is about doesn’t it?
The words that carry the most importance in boxing are surely, undisputed/unified, so how much can the most disputable title in boxing mean?
What ever relevance the title once had, it now seems that it’s a tool used to back up a fighters credibility by their fans and used equally to slate the same fighter by the fans of their rival fighters.
I think it’s important to answer the question has there ever been a current world champion who is concerned about his lineal status? It seems to me that it’s only ever mentioned by a fighter (and their fans) without a world title.
Am I talking rubbish or does anyone else see it like that?

 

No, you're right. The whole idea is absolute nonsense. Really, with the number of world titles around these days (four main ones), you are very rarely ever going to get a true 'lineal' champ in the true sense of the word, i.e. one who expunges all other claims and is the only universally recognised champion. Usyk and Hopkins are the only ones who come to mind recently who have really done it. You could maybe argue Hamed and Calzaghe as well, given that they beat the reigning champs of all of the other bodies.

There is a breed of new generation fans who think that being Ring Magazine champ makes you lineal (hence those mistakenly claiming that Klitschko and later Fury was lineal - mainly Wilder fanboys who wanted to be able to claim that he was lineal after what they thought would be an easy knockout win over a shot fighter). However, they are wrong.

Then you look at the GGG-Canelo farce, with ginger's fanboys trying to claim he was the 'lineal' middleweight champ despite never having fought a bout at the weight. Basically, people just take it to mean whatever it suits them to mean.

 

How was a 25 total Defence champion not considered lineal?

 

Always had a rival claimant. Never undisputed.

 

He defeated every other top HW by 2007

 

The most ludicrous was Fishnets & Moonelo
Oscar 1...... Canelo is lineal Middleweight champion of the world. He beat the man that beat the man etc
Oscar 2..... A few days later... Canelo is not a middleweight. He does not have to defend at 160 limit.
I ask you ROFL

 

so would there be two lineal champs all the sudden?

 

No Fury's would just not count anymore at least that's my understanding

 

Yes, but then again Buster Douglas was undisputed after beating Mike Tyson.

 

Tyson fury is the lineal champ but as one poster pointed out, what is the worth of that? As the thread title suggests, Tom Schwartz can be the lineal champion ffs. I like Tyson but I personally don’t hold the claim in high regard, it’s an each to their own thing.

 

the whole concept is just stupid. for the sake of argument you could have some welterweight boxer who was undisputed 50 years ago come back get ko'd by someone with a 1-99 record and they lets say Glass Joe would be undisputed and that means Mayweather and 20 or 30 other ppl at welterweight who held that title in the interim would then no longer of been undisputed?

 

What?
I get what your going for but they'd just wait until Glass Joe retires or the Lineage dies out then make a new one.