Lineal champion; does that mean anything to boxing fans?

Yes and no.

It meant a lot more in the one belt era. Meant a lot when the belts became fractured and people wanted to know who the real champ was.

Means a lot less now due to lack of prestige. People aren't driven to compete for lineage, there's more obvious ways to prestige now.

Which is a shame.

 

But still in 2013.
He could if Fury can in 2018 or now: he was always in the rumours, as Jameel McCline was also supposed as comeback opponent in autumn 2007, but then was he going to get a shot vs. Maskajew before Peter, who was therefore fighting McCline for the interims title.
Then he got injured again.

All of this lineage thing is subjective, as it is imaginary. Briggs was for me no one, he didn't win a round against Foreman.

 

Dude,you retire your claim is gone.
Vitali retired 2006 his claim ended there.

 

It should mean something. It indicates that the champion beat the man that had legitimate claim to a title that was genuine dating all the way back. But as another talented poster pointed out, fighters could care less about fighting lineal champions, what it amounts to is the almighty dollar, prestige means nothing these days. Too many fractured alphabet titles floating around out there.

 

Vitali was never a lineal champ.


Lewis retired thus the rule being that a vacant title is taken up when the generally recognised #1 and #2 contenders meet.


Due to Wlad and Vitali not fighting each other, this did not happen until Wlad met Pulev, although with hindsight it was Wlad/Povetkin, as although Vitali had not announced his retirement at the time, he would not fight again.


Wlad of course lost to Fury, who has been champ for over six years now.

 

There is an argument for Vitali/Sanders being for the vacant title (thus your point), but Chris Byrd had a stronger claim than Vitali for being either #1 or #2 in the world when the fight happened, thus the fight was not with the generally recognised #1 and #2 fighters.


And when Byrd did fight a Klitschko after the April 2004 Lewis retirement date, it was a rematch with Wlad rather than Vitali, who with the above mentioned win over Sanders had, with Byrd, shown himself to be one of the two best generally recognised Heavyweights of the time.

 

No you can only lose this "title" into the ring. Fury claims to be still that, but retired in 2016.

Which fight could have been in the meantime for this predigeé? Byrd vs. Klitschko II, Brewster vs. Lyakowitsch, Rahman vs. Maskajew II, Lyakowitsch vs. Briggs, Valujew vs. Tschagajew, Briggs vs. Ibragimov or Ibragimov vs. Holyfield?

When it is vacant, it can be only filled again if the two highest ranked boxers fight each other, according to users here.
Jeffries was longer retired when he fought Johnson, 4 years.

 

No he didn't, Vitaly Klitschko in fact was number 1 when Lewis retired and Corrie Sanders the next, therefore it was for the Ring Magazine Trophy. That had ranked him since the Lewis fight a #1 contender. When that is vacant, can only fight the two highest available boxers for it. So when the fight was announced (scheduled) where both Klitschko and Sanders higher ranked than Byrd.

It is just a matter of fact that these were the two highest ranked boxers, you can not rewrite the history!
Since 2003 was Byrd in every year behind him (as he was in 1999 and 2000).

In April 2006 was Brewster probably ahead of Wladimir Klitschko, when who challenged Chris Byrd the second time. As he was still WBO champion at that time and had not lost since he won that title against Klitschko.

After Klitschko vs. Sanders in April 2004 (two weak after his brothers lose) was the next time that the two best boxers fought each other arguable in October 2013 between Klitschko and Powetkin.

 

In the ring,retirement or go up in weight.
It s stupid to argue that-or do you believe Gene Tunney is still the heavyweight champion?
The vacancy is largely accepted to be occupied when Wlad fought Chagaev.

 

Then was he already back, as he fought Peter in October 2008.
So Ruslan Tschagajew and Wladimir Klitschko were not the two best boxers in the division when they fought in June 2009, in no rankings, which is necessary to fill up the vacancy.

Tunney didn't come back. But Fury claimed the lineage (which was even first questionable on him) and so would do Lewis if he come out of retirement.

 

I agree with you but Ring Magazine for example didnt and have Wlad the belt then.
Either way Wlad was the man from Vitali’s retirement until he lost to Fury.
Fury’s claim is also bogus but he is the man now after Wilder 2.

 

To me lineal titles means nothing.
Just like the other Donald Duck. Mickey Mouse. WTF titles.
Worthles!!!

 

You can't be stripped of the lineal championship. Ali was stripped by the alphabet bodies. WBA did it on 28/04/1967, NYSAC stripped him on 09/05/1967 and WBC did it on 06/03/1969.

When it comes to the lineal recognition he lost it while he announced his retirement in February 1970. He acknowledged the winner of Ellis vs Frazier will be his successor and even wanted to hand them his The Ring Magazine belt, but he wasn't allowed to do that. That's when The Ring Magazine also stripped him of their belt and presented it to the winner of Ellis and Frazier. Just because he changed his mind after the fight, doesn't change much. Yes, he still had some claim, but it wasn't universally recognized.

"Month after month, against the dissent of a considerable percentage of its readership all over the world, The Ring persisted in its stand that Cassius Clay was entitled to his day in court. The Ring held that he could not be deprived of the world championship unless the Supreme Court found him guilty of a felony, or Cassius Clay, of his free will and uncoerced determination, gave up the world championship and announced his retirement from boxing.

In February 1970, Cassius Clay’s expressed determination not to appear in the ring again as a professional became more emphatic than ever. He said that he would present to the winner of the Frazier-Ellis fight the world championship belt which had been awarded to him by The Ring Magazine in 1964.

A few days before the Frazier-Ellis contest, Eddie Dooley, chairman of the New York State Athletic Commission, ruled that Clay would not be permitted to make the presentation in the Madison Square Garden ring. Cassius thereupon announced that he would ship the belt to his Louisville alma mater, Central High School.

Nat Fleischer, editor and publisher of The Ring, who had become friendly with Clay at the 1960 Olympic Games in Rome, where Cassius won the light heavyweight title, called a staff conference and asked for a determination of the Clay case.

It was the strong sentiment of the staff that Clay had given up the world championship of his free will and that The Ring had been released from its commitments on his behalf.

The Ring decision was made without a dissenting voice. It also was voted that the winner of the Frazier-Ellis fight could be recognized by this magazine as the new heavyweight champion of the world.

If, as many skeptics predict, Clay changes his mind about quitting the ring and the lush paydays which would become available to him if he were cleared by the Supreme Court, Cassius would have to appear as the challenger, and emphatically not as the champion.

His position would be similar to the one in which Jim Jeffries found himself on July 4, 1910, at Reno, Nev., where he challenged Jack Johnson, the titleholder, and was knocked out in 15 rounds.

The Ring wishes to take the opportunity to thank those of its readers who dissented pleasantly from its policy in backing Cassius as the champion, against claims of Ellis, who won the WBA elimination tournament, and Frazier, whose title claims were supported by six states and some foreign countries. Dissenting readers never denied The Ring’s rights to support Clay."

https://www.ringtv.com/article/archive-ring-withdraws/