Lineal champion; does that mean anything to boxing fans?

Muhammad Ali did not look the same against Ringo, he did get tagged more, started to hold more, started looking gassed. On May 23 1967, those two were signed to have title bout, it was to be held in Tokyo, Japan, which would have been Ali's 11 th title defense as he also signed to give Patterson a rematch in April 1967. Neither fight materialized as Ali was stripped of his title and license on April 28 1967. But I do think Ali with his legs, stamina, reflexes, and speed would have had an easier time cruising to a victory over Bonavena than he did on Dec 7 1970 in Madison Square Garden. Joe Frazier's style enabled him to struggle both times against Oscar.

 

Lineal Champion sure means something to me! I really don't want to see us sever all connections to the past and traditions. At 1 time that was mostly all we had for Champions in Boxing.

Onward "The Lineals!" Lol.

 

Yep.

It s much better following all the world champions like Charr and Bryan and they’re reigns of terror.

 

Or you can follow Shannon the Cannon or Rahman. Or explain how the crown of Lineal makes a guy like Marvin Hart better than contemporaries like Jeanette or McVea... Oh well.

Lineal doesn't mean the best. It's closer to the concept of Apostolic Succession in the Great Roman Church. Hocus pocus. Smoke and incense.

 

Nobody said lineal means the best.
But more lineal champs have been better than non lineal champs.
Obviously not the case everytime.

 

The Lineal Champion is the Heavyweight Champion of the World. Today, right now, that means Tyson Fury is the man, until someone takes it from him or he retires! That is the way it is. It makes sense to me and, as a boxing fan, I am fine with it. It may not always have been fair, but what in life is really? It is what it is, imperfect. It is the best system for determining the World Champion we have.

 

It's a thing that only us boxing nuts understand.
The man who beat the man who... Etc
I remember having to explain to a friend why Shannon Briggs was the true champ above all the other names at the time.
Took some doing!!

 

I had a doctor that once said I had a severe problem with my lineal gland.

 

It caused me to make a lot of comments when I had nothing of interest to say to anyone about the subject matter at hand. I mean, it causes me that now but it did in the past as well, and several key moments leading up to now from the past, in between.

 

Don't talk about things you know nothing about

 

Vitaly Klitschko was over 9 years lineal champion, from April 2004 to end of 2013.

 

Lol,
Vitali retired in 2005 bro.

 

No in 2006, he was scheduled to fight Rahman in summer and November 2005, again in January 2006.
Or do you mean Tajbert? He retired around 2013. Or Tsypko, maybe in 2009.

But Fury retired like five times, first in 2016. If so then won it Joshua against Powetkin, or Parker or Klitschko.

But Klischko was WBC champion emeritus, therefore could he fight for the world title immediately when he returend. Also was he in 2007 supposed to fight Ibragimov as tune-up and was putted in the WBO top 10 for this.

 

So if he retired in 2006 he couldnt have been lineal in 2012.

 

Looking at the Apostolic Succession is usually a good indicator of who the Pope was, though. You can point at exceptions, like the Avignon Papacy and the unsettled/poorly documented conditions of the early Roman bishops. But if you step into most periods and ask who the Pope is, you'll get one of the guys from the list.

"Best fighter in era X" is already an artificial category, since most fighters only have one-offs against each other. And they generally don't face all of their challengers even once. The lineal championship is a better gauge than the alternatives, IMO.