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

I think you're conflating universally recognised champion, with lineal champion. They are demonstrably two different things. E.g. Briggs was lineal champion, but never universally recognised as THE champion.

In the event of the lineal champion retiring, the core logic is, and always has been, the next best two fighters should fight to establish a new champion. Prior to published rankings, determining those next best two fighters is subjective. Post rankings, it's #1 vs #2.

Your Ezzard Charles example is perfect to illustrate the distinction. He was the lineal champion after beating Walcott. He wasn't the universally recognised champion, as opinion as to whether he was THE man, was split.

 

Not in normal cicumstances.

 

Universally recognized/consensus champion is a real thing that existed from the beginning of boxing. Lineal championship is a concept created in the 80's. Charles wasn't the lineal champion when he beat Walcott, as the concept didn't exist yet. You can retroactively apply the concept to him with rules made up in the 80's, but that's rewriting history.

 

Gravity is a concept created in the '80s — the 1680s — by Sir Isaac Newton. There was no gravity in our physical dimension before then because the concept didn't exist yet. We can retroactively apply the concept to our dimension with Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation made up in the '80s, but that's rewriting the universe.

 

Sorry fella, normally I enjoy your posts, but you've lost me as to what point you're trying to make. I think you're in real danger of tying yourself in knots here.

Are you arguing that there were no lineal champions before the 1980's because that is when the concept was created? Because - 1) If not, lineage can either be applied retrospectively or it can't. If it can, Charles was lineal champion from JJW 1; 2) If so, and you consider Holmes to be the first lineal champion, why not state that's your view from the outset, as its a view that is clearly material to the discussion we've been having for several posts now?

 

Very bad analogy, horrible even. Gravity is a force that always existed, people didn't create it, just found out how it works and described it. Lineal championship is a concept people created trying to point out the real champion in the era of 3 alphabet champions.

 

Depending how you look at it. There were no lineal champions, as the concept didn't exist. You also didn't have modern type rankings up to 1924. All I'm trying to say, there is no historical precedense that the number 1 vs number 2 crowned the new champion and all the accepted lineages have in common is, they started with the universally recognized champion.

 

I think we agree that the universally accepted champion and lineal champion are different concepts, that can result in different "champions". The former is subjective and debatable, the latter is objective and demonstrable.

If we apply lineage retrospectively, which every boxing historian and poster on this site does, Charles was categorically, unequivocally, lineal champion from Walcott one.

https://boxing.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_lineal_boxing_world_champions

https://boxrec.com/wiki/index.php/Lineal_Heavyweight_Champion

 

You can't objectively demonstrate Marvin Hart being crowned the lineal champion off of the number 1 vs number 2 match up as there were no modern rankings back then and there was no consensus that Hart and Root were number 1 and number 2 at the time, especially Root.

On the other hand, using The Ring Magazine rankings for crowning Charles the champion off of his Walcott victory is kinda funny, since the editors spent the entire issue explaining why Charles isn't the champion just yet. So doing that we're taking Ring's authority on the 2 best HWs in the world, but not on their view of the championship.

 

I'm sorry it's beyond your immediate frame of understanding.

The same way boxing championship succession has always been present in boxing and subsequently given a name (Lineal Champion/Championship) and had rules applied to it, which are based, no less, on observation of historical precedent (seeing how it works).

No, it isn't. Championship lineage has roots going as far back as the bare-knuckle era. Giving it a name neither changes that fact nor make the person that came up with the name its creator.

 

Agreed Hart can't be demonstrated definitively as lineal champion.

You're confusing lineal champion with recognised champion, again. If we accept lineal champions existed before the 1980's, Charles was lineal from JJW 1.

 

may I ask why?

 

Because aside from the lineal champion losing, the only way for lineage to change is for #1 to fight #2 when the lineal champion has either retired or is campaigning in another weight division.

There were no published rankings when Hart fought vs Root, so it's open to interpretation whether it was for the lineal title or not.

Charles and JJW were #1 and #2 when they fought, at which point the lineal champion was retired, so the outcome of that fight did demonstrably create a new lineage.

 

But if Hart and Root fought for the vacant title wouldnt thry be no 1 and 2?

 

By what measure/according to who?