Lineal champion; does that mean anything to boxing fans?

It means something. The lineal champions have generally been better than the non-lineal non-champions.

 

I think it needs to be taken on a case by case bases. For example when Muhammad Ali entered the ring for the first time against Joe Frazier in 1971, it was Frazier who should have been seen as champion. I agree that lineage has importance but I also give merit to the paper champion who had to go through a gauntlet of contenders to get ahold of the belt. Jimmy Ellis, Jack Johnson ( before he fought Jeffries ) and mike Tyson ( before he beat spinks ) are a few examples

 

Your post is good, Muhammad Ali officially entered the ring as challenger on the night of March 8 1971, against champion Joe Frazier. You see, Muhammad Ali was stripped of his lineal title on April 28 1967, also of his boxing license for refusing to be drafted, then on June 20 1967, he was convicted of that crime. On April 23 1968 Jimmy Ellis won the vacant WBA title by defeating Jerry Quarry on points. March 4 1968, Joe Frazier stopped Buster Mathis in round 11 to win the 5 state title. On Feb 16 1970, Joe Frazier stopped WBA champion Jimmy Ellis in the 5 th round to become champion. The reason many considered Ali the champion before The Fight Of The Century was because Ali was never beaten in the ring for the title he won from Sonny Liston in Feb 1964, and the WBA title he reclaimed by beating Ernie Terrell on Feb 6 1967.

 

I've made a thread regarding the Tyson v Spinks fight regarding lineal belt.

The lineal title has been used pretty recently by Tyson Fury too. The people s champ.

 

It is hard to argue that it means much after Shannon Briggs.

 

Lineal champions are the kings.

 

Yes. The lineal title is the only one I do count. The alphabet titles practically mean nothing 99% of the time due to the shenanigans of the sanctioning bodies.

 

Generally in these cases one of two ways:

1) The top two consensus contenders, No. 1 vs. No. 2, fight to settle a new lineage.

2) In the cases of more than one recognized champion, a champion who has beaten the other(s) in a championship fight is bestowed the lineal title — case in point, WBC champ Larry Holmes had beaten Mike Weaver, who became WBA champ. There were two champions at this point and one (Larry) had beaten the other (Weaver), thus he is the lineal champ as it’s been settled.

 

I don’t think you’ll ever see a situation like that again. Two undefeated world champions, both with a legitimate claim to the title, deciding who was the best of the best. And the result was one of the best fights in history.

 

Agreed, but it would have been interesting if both had their physical gifts at the time of that great fight. Don't get me wrong, Joe Frazier earned that victory fair and square, but Muhammad Ali had lost a step or two, 43 months off, March 1967 until October 1970. Ali had lost his legs and stamina by then. He looked good against Jerry Quarry, but struggled against Oscar Bonavena, Ali started to hold more, started to use the ropes. A 1967 Ali would have done neither, also by 1971, his timing was gone, he started to get tagged more, more vulnerable. As I have previously posted, as champion in his first reign, 1964-1967, Ali never tasted the canvas, against Frazier and Wepner, he did.

 

I don’t know if I’d read too much into him ‘struggling’ against Ringo. So did Joe.

 

Nothing. Hocus pocus cast by cigar-chomping anachronisms.