Only one linear HW champion was not knocked down in title fights.

Who is and isn't considered lineal champion often just seems to be a pretty arbitrary convention, then gets estbalished and rarely questioned.

I researched Paddy Duffy, an obscure fighter who is included at the beginning of the Welterweight lineage, and is even in the hall of fame. But as best as I can tell, he largely seems to have gotten his place in the lineage because he died while a claiment, and there was then reports of a welterweight champion dying, which secured him in the lineage, but he was pretty obscure during and after his reign, and I really don't think he deserves to be in the lineage as much as some claiments who are never included.

 

Back in those days boxing operated under a claimant system (like the belts today but without the sanctioning fees) and whoever claimed to be the champ, usually was the champ. If there were multiple claims usually they faced each other to establish a champ that no one disputed.

The early WW title scene is one of the biggest messes in boxing history imo.

 

Yes there was. Francisco Damiani was WBO HW champ.

But with your Morlocks Lineage a lot of boxing isn't as the rest of us perceive.

I mean the only champions to establish in the modern era would be Usyk, Crawford, Calzaghe, Hamed, Lewis and Hopkins.

No one else has beaten every title holder in their division.

I have to admit, I'm not a fan of the Morlocks Linearity rules.

 

This content is protected

 

This content is protected

 

I've been listening to this argument for 40+ years.

It has always been relatively easy to determine who the lineal champ is, in hindsight.

He is the man who beat the previous man who held the heavyweight championship.

And, if the man who previously holds the heavyweight championship never fights again, the new lineal champ is crowned when the top two men meet to determine who is best.

What new fans of the sport don't seem to realize is sometimes you don't know who the Lineal champ was until AFTER the fact. It's not always clear AT THE TIME. It just isn't. Because fighters have announced retirements and come back. Ali retired a half a dozen times in the 1970s. Ali would retire seemingly after every title defense in the 1970s.

People who throw caveats out there like "you have to hold all the belts" or "if a champ says he retires, then comes back, he isn't the champ anymore" are just citing the rules Ring magazine decided upon a few years ago, and there were heavyweight champions before Ring magazine existed.

Muhammad Ali didn't lose his "lineal" title because the WBA stripped him and gave it to Terrell. Spinks didn't lose his lineal title because the WBC stripped him for not fighting Norton.

It's not about what a magazine says or what an org says, it's about what happens in the ring.

Where it should.

Leon Spinks became Lineal champ when he beat Ali. Ali became Lineal champ a third time when he beat Spinks. Holmes became Lineal champ when he beat Ali.

Doesn't matter if Ali was out for two years prior. He never lost during those two years. The top two heavyweights never fought during those two years. And Holmes was the first guy to beat Ali when he returned.

Jack Dempsey was out three and half years before fighting Tunney. It happens. Champions get bored. They say they are done. They do something else. Change their minds, and come back. That's what I mean by saying "it's not always clear at the time." It's difficult to wait it out and see what happens. We want to know who the champ is NOW.

But, in hindsight, things become clear.

Larry Holmes remained Lineal champ after he vacated the WBC belt and picked up the IBF belt, because sanctioning rule mandates don't apply to who is and is the heavyweight champion. It's about who wins in the ring. Not in a board room.

Michael Spinks became the Lineal champ when he beat Holmes. When Spinks vacated the IBF belt, he remained the Lineal champ. He hadn't lost.

When Mike Tyson won all the belts in 1987, Spinks was still the Lineal champ. Tyson didn't become the Lineal champ until he beat Spinks, which he did.

There really wasn't a whole lot of confusion as to who the heavyweight champions were for the previous 100 years until the Klitschko brothers showed up.

Lewis (the Lineal Champ) retired. The Klits were the two best heavyweights for a long time. And they refused to fight to crown a new lineal champ. It was frustrating. It arguably hurt the sport. (I know why they didn't fight, but their actions hurt the sport. We need to see the top two heavyweights fight. We didn't ... for about a decade.)

When Vitali retired and Wlad Klitschko beat the undefeated top contender Alexander Povetkin in 2013, they were the top two heavyweights in the world.

If there was any confusion about who was champ, Klitschko-Povetkin is when it unquestionably became Wlad's title. They were the top two heavyweights. They fought. Wlad won.

The next year, Wlad fought another undefeated #1 contender, Pulev, and knocked him out. So, if there was any doubt who the Lineal champ was, it was Wlad. He did what you are expected to do when there is a vacant Lineal title ... engage in a #1 vs #2 battle ... and he did it twice. And won twice.

The current Lineal champ is Tyson Fury. He beat the last Lineal champ Wlad. Fury has won all the titles (WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO) and never lost them in the ring. And, when Fury was ranked the #1 heavyweight, he beat the #2 ranked heavyweight Wilder in February. By any measure, he is the champ.

Doesn't matter if Fury was out for a while. Doesn't matter if he was stripped of any belts. What happens in the ring matters. Doesn't matter if he vacates his WBC belt tomorrow.

Tyson Fury is the Lineal champ ... until he loses in the ring.

 

He seems to be making them up. I've been following boxing since the 1970s. I never heard you had to hold ALL the belts. There were instances, before there was a MORLOCKS on this message board, when there were Lineal champs who didn't have ANY belts.

So, take it with a grain of salt.

And Fury has won all the belts and never lost. He has them all in his trophy case. He didn't have to give any back when the IBF gave a belt to Charles Martin and the WBO gave a belt to Joseph Parker.

 

The lineal thing is somewhat arbitrary. I'm one of those clowns who spends nearly all of his boxing time reading and researching heavyweight history, so I've never tried to establish linearity in other divisions.

That said, heavyweight history has several examples of fighters establishing themselves as "lineal" champions, and then cementing their claim by beating a returning champion. Ezzard Charles got recognition as champion (despite Lee Savold's claim, his organizational title), then solidified his championship by beating Joe Louis. Joe Frazier got recognition by beating Jimmy Ellis shortly after Ali announced his retirement, then solidified his championship by beating Ali. So Joe was already champ, but beating Ali reinforced this. Larry Holmes had established himself, in the eyes of many, as champion in March of 1980 when previous victim (of less than a year before) Mike Weaver beat WBA champ John Tate. Holmes solidified his championship by beating a comebacking Muhammad Ali. In my view, Charles, Frazier, and Holmes achieved lineal champion status prior to beating Louis, Ali, and Ali respectively.

Sometimes, as we know, the lineal champion isn't the best in the division. Mike Tyson didn't become champion until he beat Michael Spinks; even his management (pre-King) at the time stated this. Sure, he won some belts, but he was sort of like Sonny Liston, blowing out several contenders and being acknowledged as a better fighter than the champion before finally getting an opportunity to prove it.

The WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO, IBC, WAA, IBO, WBF, etc., have all proven themselves to be incompetent at best and corrupt at worst, especially post-1970's. I just can't respect their decisions or their rankings. I mean, they name all these champs and it's easy to get lost. And people will honor Mike Tyson as the "youngest heavyweight champion" by beating Trevor Berbick. Why? One of the organizations recognized Buster Mathis as "super-heavyweight champion" by beating Humphrey McBride. Is Mathis a former champion? Joe Frazier was stripped by one of the organizations in 1972 and Foreman and Bonavena were going to fight for the vacant title, but that seems to be lost to history. Muhammad Ali was recognized as WBA champion after four different wins: Liston I, then stripped. Terrell, then stripped. Foreman, then lost to Spinks. Spinks. Yet we refer to Ali as a "three-time champion". I even saw a news story where they called Ali the "three-time WBA heavyweight champion." It just seems to be so random as far as who is recognized as champ at a given time. Even on this thread, in a forum populated by many very knowledgable folks, people are confused about heavyweight lineage. Even I get lost after Lennox Lewis retired.

As near as I can tell, the answer to the original question is Max Baer and Riddick Bowe.

 

In answer to the question that started the thread, I think you're right about Max Baer.

I think he's the only one.

 

Riddick Bowe ... Damn! Forgot him. For some reason, when recalling Bowe-Holyfield III, I always think of it as a WBO title fight. But it wasn't.

 

Excellent posts, Dubblechin.

 

What you consider to be historical isn’t the case.

Hart and Root were picked by Jeffries to fight for a vacant title lol

 

Although Robinson and Bell were not the top two ranked WW fighters when they fought for the vacant title.

 

I have never looked at welterweight lineage. Never interested me.

 

The problem is the heavyweight division is the most straight forward in terms of lineage.

The other divisions are an absolute nightmare.

@Stonehands89 knows more about this than I ever will.