When Was Lineal /linear first mentioned in regard s the heavyweights? Was it for Michael Spinks after Holmes, Holmes beating Ali? Can't find anything about the origin of its use anywhere.
And when did non title fights like Fury V Wallin start being officially announced as lineal championship bouts?
If you mention Lineal title and BELT in the same context you don’t know what your writing about. Lineal title means you have a level of LINK to the past that justifies your existence as the true worlds champion. Without this link the title is worthless as then anyone can call themselves champion.
But it s not always as simple as having a link once a champ retired is it? Max Schmeling after Gene Tunney comes to mind, Floyd Patterson after Rocky. I no Floyd beat Moore who challenged Rock in his last fight but there was no other link there. Some linear time lines are more obvious as Holmes beat Ali and Charles Louis.
It was simple. Once a champion retires and the two leading contenders fight for that vacant championship the lineage continues. Reason is the prior champion upon retiring is no longer available so the leading two challengers fighting to determine the new champion assures that at the very least the best fighter continues forward as the new champion. Until relatively recently this was a very reasonable and simple way to handle the retiring of a champion. Of course a world where there are 4-5 champions per division muddies the waters as whom is the true leading contenders become impossible to determine.
I'll Agee with your point regarding too many champion s, how the hell we ever manage to get an undisputed champ beyond me.
Good question, but I admit it adds to the confusion. Was Roy Jones considered lineal when he left LHW to move up to HW? That wasn't just a mess, but an illegal one at that. He moves back down & restores status regardless 2 combatants did as stated above Nunn losing to Richiaginni or some name like that. Sued the org for telling he he was fighting for the belt...then SYKE!! JUST KIDDING...Give them belts back to Roy!
LOL, it is a crazy situation tho when there's so many belt holders. The good old days in the 70 s when most division s had one champ, at the worst two.
As far as I understand it, the phrase really came into common usage with the Ali-Frazier situation, with Ali laying claim to be the 'lineal' champion as nobody had ever beaten him in the ring, Frazier having picked up the vacant titles when Ali was stripped for dodging the draft. Lineal title (as others have said, there is no belt, it's an imaginary/abstract concept) means you are the rightful owner of championship status in a division because nobody ever beat you in the ring. Today, with so many titles around, the whole concept is meaningless. You can't lay claim to being lineal unless you unify all four main ones, which few ever do (Hopkins, Usyk about the only ones I can think of, plus Crawford at 140, but he vacated straight after. Calzaghe and Hamed would have done but for politics). Lewis was considered lineal when he retired because Tyson unified the three main ones in the 80s before the WBO came into existance. The lineage then went Tyson - Douglas - Holyfield - Bowe - Holyfield - Moorer - Foreman - Briggs - Lewis. Nowadays, there are too many Johnny come lately fans who think that a fighter holding the Ring title or being considered #1 in a division by most people makes them the lineal champ. There are also too many who like to interpret it to mean whatever suits their favourite fighter. Klitschko was never really lineal as he only held three belts. And Fury especially needs to stop having fights against opponents like his laast two announced as 'lineal title defences' because its embarrassing! Then you've had the whole farce with Cotto/ Canelo claiming lineal middleweight champion status despite never having fought a bout at the middleweight limit. The whole thing has just descended into a cheap label for promoters to hype their fighter or plastic fans to use in a 'my fighter's better than yours' type argument. All IMO of course.
I dunno Ferguson. You get one champion and you might only get 2 heavyweight title fights a year and one might be a voluntary defence against a no hoper. Even Ali in the 70s, especially after the last Frazier fight was more interested in just picking up paychecks and fighting cans like Dunn and some Spanish waiter. Holmes was doing same in the 80s after beating Cooney and avoiding the best challengers when he could. Holmes might have still being the best but if there was only 1 champ, I doubt if the likes of Thomas, Dokes, Page and Cortzee and Tubbs would ever had the chance to fight for the title. I think 2 champs is more than acceptable.
2 I can cope with, I grew up in the 70 s watching boxing and then as we moved in to the next decade the IBF moved in, followed by WBO, then Followed by........... It's nuts.
That's where a body/org can make a difference, but their greed wouldn't allow it. Only Unification bouts should be PPV. Then they'd fight more often.
One point regarding Ali/Frazier... Ali officially retired in 1970. Once this occurred Frazier, because of his KO of Ellis, became the new champion. Up until Alis retirement he continued to be worlds hwt champion. Certainly Fraziers win over the then un retired Ali was icing on the cake.