Common factors among the lineal heavyweight champions

And we're just talking heavyweights here, right?

 

Well, what you're saying janitor, it pretty well irrefutable for the most part, but there have been abberations, or exceptions now and then, 2 of them...such as Max Baer, who traded pretty much on the immense power of that explosive, sledgehammer right of his...and Ingemar Johansson, who some may argue was only good at throwing his patented "bingo"..but I would say that both men were at least rudimentally skilled in other areas...Ingo more than Baer. Johansson had good footwork, a decent probing, rangefinder jab, and in the 1st Patterson fight at least, he could show a certain cunning, such as jabbing, back peddling and tying up Patterson, all the while keeping that right hand bomb of his under wraps, almost hypnotizing his man with a metronomic, hypnotic type of pattern....just jab, step back, jab, jab, jab again, then when he had his man lulled...BOOM...the end came. Johansson had a very fast and efficient trajectory for the execution of that Bingo of his....which makes him more than a mere bomb lobber, in my opinion. Baer could have been so much better than he was...he revealed that at times vs Schmeling, when he would suddenly sidestep the German, put his right glove on the right side of Schmeling's neck and hurl him into the ropes. He did this so fast and so easy that it shook up and threw Schmeling off course every time. It seemed that, however was the only thing that Max did that approached cleverness...and it was ultimately the big right landing with a thunderclap that was Maxie's deciding factor.
On the reference to Jimmy Young, I think if that if their was true justice in boxing, and I mean specifically on the nights that Jimmy fought Ali and Norton, Young would have been crowned heavyweight champion...no doubt about it. Jimmy was a defensive genius on par with Locche and Benitez...he didn't need power..as heayweights go, he was one of a kind, although actually Ali didnt have power either, and he compensated of course, with his storied attributes as well.

As right, overall as you are about the common thread of power regarding the heavyweights, just two divisional steps down at 175 however, it seems that speed, skill, boxing ability and light punching are the common threads, at least for stretches.
The examples here are Philadelphia Jack O'Brien, Jimmy Slattery, Tommy Loughran, Maxie Rosenbloom, Billy Conn, Joey Maxim, and Willie Pastrano.
This is only noted as a contrasting trend as opposed to the heavies...and for brevity's sake, I won't plumb other, lighter divisions for examples.

 

6'3 was really big back then

 

If you count the non lineal champs as well, 6'3 would be more or less the norm for the 1980s.

Larry Holmes
Tim Witherspoon
Michael Dokes
Pinklon Thomas
Tony Tubbs
Francesco Damiani

Then others an inch either side of 6'3

John Tate
Gerrie Coetzee
Greg Page
Michael Spinks
Trevor Berbick
Bonecrusher Smith

Only Mike Weaver, Mike Tyson and Tony Tucker were more than one inch either side of 6'3 in the 1980s.

 

They all got a bauble that either meant a great deal or not very much.

The "lineal" hocus pocus is a bunch of bull**** along the lines of Apostolic Succession… Only the truly superstitious believe it has any merit.

 

Yes, because Shannon Briggs and Michael Moorer are so much better than Sam Langford.

Take your 12 sided dice and have a fun game.

 

Lineality could mean a lot, if the lineal titlist (lineality for me is as meaningful as a trinket) fought the most potent opponent, or at least the most potent opponent willing to fight him every time, "on the level" but when was it this way? probably never.

Lineality is called by cheats, corrupt judges, avoidance of opponents, etc. just like any title is.

Think of Holyfield not really beating Bowe in their rematch which who knows its measure of effect by the parachute man incident, becoming "lineal" due to that incident along with the judges' decision.

Then Holyfield decking Moorer 2:0, only to lose a decision, again due to judges' decision.

Then Moorer losing to an obese handicapped zombie by KO because of never even beating the not really lineal titlist.

Then the fat handicapped zombie goes on to carefully select his opponents until selling his "lineality" to Shannon Briggs, whom did not deserve the win yet again.

Now remember that Bowe ducked the likes of Lewis & McCall, and who knows, he might have been steered away from a diminished Witherspoon and some his likes as well.

Holyfield fought the corpses of Foreman and Holmes, what can it mean other than him ducking the top men?
And he did not beat Holmes.

And what is the "lineality" based on? Tyson whom cheated BIGtime almost every fight.

This is a good exaple of the historical value of lineality for me.

 

what about Leon Spinks?

He may have reached lineal champion status with Zero great attributes according to some?

Marvin Hart (if considered lineal) is another who might be considered a shavers type who won the title.