A Question Regarding FOTC?

I see it as
3. A unification between the lineal title claimant & the organized body champ.

 

I go for option B.

Muhammad announced his retirement in early 1970 and said that people should recognise the winner of the upcoming WBC/WBA unification bout between Joe Frazier and Jimmy Ellis as the new champ.

 

Ali losing the title. Frazier never claimed himself a champion, not till he had his victory against Ali. Ali was the rightful champion at that point and was the title was unjustly taken from him. Frazier was just a placeholder until he beat that man.

 

It certainly WAS an injustice Muhammad having his title taken away from him like that but,as he'd officially announced that he was retiring in February 1970 he was stating that he was no longer champion.

 

But he didn’t retire… he kept fighting. The title of the heavyweight champion of the world goes to the best boxer on the planet until they are dethroned or pass on the torch. Or at least thats how someone with pride like Joe saw it. I see it the same.

 

i see it as A.

As long as the true champ didn't willingly retire and relinquish his title or lose it in the ring, he remains the true champ. If Usyk was banned from boxing today for political reasons (assuming he is 5 years younger), and he genuinely wanted to come back, i would regard him as champ. If you didn't willingly relinquish your title or legitimately lose it in the ring, you are still champ. At least until it is no longer feasible for you to make a successful comeback.

 

He retired and while doing that he says he will accept the winner of Frazier vs Ellis as his rightful successor. He also wanted to give the winner his belt, but was not allowed to. Just because he came back, doesn't mean he was still the champion. He could claim it, but he didn't have the support of the majority of the public at the time. Joe Frazier was the reigning champion when he faced Ali.

 

Muhammad resumed fighting when he got his license back AFTER his February 1970 retirement announcement. I have always disagreed with the authorities taking away his title and livelihood back in 1967. He was treated appallingly. But Muhammad did vacate the Ring championship belt thus declaring the title vacant.

 

I get that the title was vacant, objectively it was Frazier defending his title but thematically it seems to me more like Frazier earning his title.

 

He just added to his, then universally recognized, claim as the heavyweight champion. He beat the previous champion coming off of retirement, like Jack Johnson beat Jim Jeffries and Ezzard Charles beat Joe Louis.

 

An Option C would probably be fairer. But what if for example Ali took a few more tuneups and lost one. Who’d be considered Lineal champion then? Also doesn’t this mean Ali successfully defended the Lineal title 21 times. Including Quarry 1 then Bonavena. Another thing not often mentioned. Ali could easily have claimed to be a 4 times champion.
WBA WBC Lineal vs Liston.
WBA vs Terrell.
WBA WBC Lineal vs Foreman.
WBA Lineal vs Spinks.
He won the WBA title agains the present holder 4 times. Never vacant.

 

He retired in 1970 and therefore vacated the lineal title. The moment you announce that you have retired as a professional boxer (regardless of whether you come back), you lose your claim as a lineal champion, especially when a new lineage has already been established between the top 2 contenders (i.e., Frazier and Young). Ali was not the lineal champ from the moment he retired to the moment he beat Foreman for it.