Can the lineal champion lose his claim outside the ring? And, if so, when?

It takes 3-5 years. When a new lineal champ is named usually either the old one comes back and fights then or they don't and then the new claimant sticks. But the process of them losing recognition takes 3-5 years.

DM v RJJ at LHW shows what it takes for an active non lineal champ to lose the lineal belt to a non lineal title holder. And in this instance RJJ knocked out Virgil Hill the fighter after DM beat him by decision. So there was a linealish claim there.

I think a good example in the present is Jermell Charlo at 154. Its been 4 years since hes defended and while he was stripped he has not been replaced.

 

I think it depends how literally you're applying the term "lineal".

I think there's a general acceptance that lineage, in a literal sense, can only change in one of two circumstances:

1. The lineal champion losses; Or

2. The lineal champion retires and the #1 vs #2 fight to establish a new lineage;

However, sometimes the term "lineal" can be conflated with "the champion" or Ring Magazine champion, in it's application. They're usually the same fighter, but not always. When Foreman lost to Briggs, the lineage changed, but I don't think anyone considered that the champion changed.

 

Foreman is the closest case in the HW division of the lineal champion losing the championship claim outside of the ring despite never retiring.

 

It's a really fun topic historically:

John L. Sullivan didn't lose the status while announcing retirement and being out 3 years as no legit successor was crowned.

Jim Corbett didn't lose the status while announcing retirement and being out 2 years, even tho 3 claimants were sort-of crowned but didn't gain universal recognition: Maher, Fitzs and Sharkey.

Jim Jeffries lost the status while announcing retirement and being out 6 years. In the meanwhile there were 3 legit successors crowned: Hart, Burns and Johnson.

Jess Williard didn't lose the status despite not defending the title for 3 years and 3 months. I WW probably explains why.

Jack Dempsey didn't lose the status despite not defending the title for 3 years. Nobody emerged to take it from him.

Joe Louis lost his status while announcing retirement and being out for 18 months, despite his successor not being crowned when he was out of action. Ezzard Charles became the universally recognized champion when he beat him, so it shows his claim was still valid, but it wasn't viewed as Charles beating the reigning champion. Louis was seen as an ex-champ and a contender to Charles' NBA title.

Muhammad Ali lost his status while being out 3 years and 7 months. In the meanwhile he announced his retirement and Joe Frazier was crowned as his rightful successor. Ali was widely viewed as being the contender when he faced Smokin' Joe despite still brandishing his claim.

Muhammad Ali lost his status while announcing retirement and being out for 15 months. Larry Holmes was kinda crowned as his successor in the meanwhile when Mike Weaver won the WBA belt. Similar to the Louis/Charles situation Holmes became the universally recognized champion when he beat him, however, Ali was viewed as the contender, not the reigning champion. Even by himself. He wanted to become 4x champion in the process of beating Holmes.

Foreman is the closest case in the HW division of the lineal champion argubly losing the championship claim outside of the ring despite never retiring or losing a fight. Losing/vacating 2 alphabet belts and the decision against Schulz that was seen as a robbery really dimmed his status. No successor was crowned in the meanwhile, but Holyfield became consensus number 1 when he beat Moorer in the rematch.

Tyson Fury didn't lose his status while being out for 2 years and 7 months. No legit successor was crowned in the meanwhile, but the consensus was starting to form around AJ. Joshua never been universally recognized tho as he failed to beat Wilder, the consensus number 2.

 

As others have pointed out, it really depends on what the definition of "lineal" is and what you want it to mean.

Taken literally, a lineal champion can't lose that status, except by being beaten in the ring. The lineage would end on their permanent retirement, and a new lineage could be established elsewhere.

However, that isn't particularly satisfying if you want lineal status to mean something beyond just being a label. So you probably should apply some kind of standard, but actually deciding exactly what that is can be tricky as it isn't really a one-size fits all thing.

I think broadly speaking the lineal claim becomes questionable once the consensus is that they are no longer a credible champion. So it matters what other fighters do, not just the lineal champion in question. Delightfully vague, but if that bar is set high then you're really looking at exceptional circumstances.

Foreman is probably the best heavyweight example. Around the time of the Savarese fight, Foreman had effectively taken the title offline. The real action was Holyfield/Tyson, and consensus when they were fighting was that it was for the gold. There was little talk about Holyfield fighting Foreman, and it seemed that Foreman had little intention of inhabiting the same fighting world where Holyfield, Tyson, Lewis etc were active.

Spinks is a curious example that comes to mind. He bailed on the heavyweight "tournament", from which Tyson emerged as not just the last man standing, but the biggest global heavyweight star since Ali. Spinks, like Foreman, was playing a different game outside of where the real action was, defending whatever claim remained against unranked fighters. However, when they eventually did fight, the unification angle was still significant and a major selling point. Enough people saw Spinks as either a genuine threat, or at the least unfinished business for Tyson to deal with.

There isn't always a clear rhyme and reason behind this, and there really doesn't have to be.

 

By my understanding, whilst he lost universal recognition as the HW champion due to not defending against the best contenders, by definition he didn't lose lineage until Briggs beat him.

 

Well James J Jeffries was out of the ring almost six years I think, when he came back to fight Johnson.
Not sure if he was still recognised as linear champ or not then.

 

Retrospectively and definitively establishing lineage pre the 1920's is impossible due to lack of rankings, meaning you can't demonstrate #1 fought #2 whilst the lineal champion was retired. So, it's more speculative and down to interpretation.

Mine is that even if Hart and Burns didn't deserve to be #1 and #2 when they fought, Burns and Johnson surely were when they fought, so either way Johnson was lineal champion by the time he fought Jeffries.

 

I'd wager that, at the time, there were quite a few supporters of the idea that Jeffries still carried the lineage.

 

Absolutely.

 

You don't need number 1 vs number 2 match-up to establish the lineage. That's just modern interpretation of what happened. You need a consensus champion. And you can successfuly argue it was either Hart (remember, he beat Johnson on his way up) or Burns (Police Gazzette doesn't count Hart's reign),

 

Pre 1920's I agree with you, if only because there were no rankings.

Since then, I think the majority view is that for a new lineage to be established post the lineal champions retirement, #1 must fight #2.

Again, it's easy to conflate who is perceived to be THE champion with who is the lineal champion. Whilst they are often the same fighter, they're not always, therefore by definition, these are 2 x separate things.

Post Ring magazine rankings, lineage can be tracked in a way that is entirely objective. For the HW title, it only changes when the lineal champion loses or when #1 vs #2 fight whilst the lineal champion is retired.

Perception of who THE champion is, is subjective, though probably more relevant, at least when there is a general consensus that stands up to scrutiny with the benefit of hindsight.

 

Well, the new lineage starts with THE champion, so the consensus one. Usually post-1920s new champions were crowned after a box off tournaments to get as much contenders out of the way. No. 1 and No. 2 is a concept that arose in the 1980's with the concept of the lineal champion itself. F.e. when Charles beat Walcott in the no. 1 and no. 2 match-up, Ezzard Charles wasn't universally recognized as the new champ. Larry Holmes was widely recognized as such when Weaver snatched the WBA belt off of Tate and with Larry being the WBC title holder who laready beat Tate gained that status. Wlad had to clean out the division to become THE champion starting the new lineage. Historically, there is no clear case of number 1 vs number 2 starting the new lineage, except for the finalists off the box off tournaments.