Did you consider Fury & Foreman champions with no belts?

No. If you don't have possession of the belt, I don't consider you a champion. People have different reasons for vacating, but when they vacate, they give up their claim.

Both can say they were "lineal champ" but that doesn't mean a whole lot to me if they're not actively fighting top contenders.

 

In 101% of cases it is not - "a man who beat a man".

 

Lejiminently.

 

Schulz got 2 title shots in a row after Foreman. He was good enough to fight for 2 alphabet titles in a row.

Savarese was USBA champ and Grimsley(by far the worst of the group) had won the WBA "Fedelatin" belt and WBC "Fecarbox" belts. Regional champs especially the NABF/USBA ones have traditionally been acceptable title defenses though that importance has diminished. Spinks fought Tanstad(RIP) because he was EBU champ and both Ali and Holmes had multiple defenses against the European and Commonwealth champs several of whom(Coopman, Dunn, Zanon maybe Lucien Rodriguez) would be nowhere near the title picture if not for that distinction. In terms of Savarese up to that point there had been 10 USBA champs and 8 would fight for a world title and 6 would win.

Briggs had none of that(yet) but he would turn out to be a alphabet world champ seperate from the lineal belt he got from fighting Foreman. He actually had Lennox Lewis in trouble in that next fight and with a little bit of luck could have won. If nothing else Briggs proved himself a worthy opponent. Muhammad Ali and Tim Witherspoon didn't really earn their title shots either but they turned out to be good no one cares. It only matters if they don't turn out to be good(like Grimsley).

I liken Foremans SOS in his last few fights to Holmes in the mid 80s he was picking on young talent with 0 losses or 1 loss when you really didn't know how they would turn out. Briggs turned out to be great, Savarese turned out to be fine and Grimsley did nothing.

Anyhow I like to think when someone fights Ali, Frazier, Norton, Lyle and Jimmy Young they have earned a bit of pass for not facing the Hides, Seldons, Zolkins, Ibeauchis and Izons of the world (guys who were in the top 10). Grimsley was an awful defense and sure he could have fought like David Tua instead but its not the end of the world.

Besides Holyfield who fought everyone and Bowe who fought only Holyfield all the top HWs of the 90s(Lennox, Bowe, Moorer, Holyfield, Foreman, Tyson) fought 2 of the other 5 elite HWs. Foreman met that standard.

 

None of those guys were ranked in the top 10 at the time they faced Foreman. A 3 year reign with not a single top 10 ranked opponent is pretty crappy and clearly not a great look for someone trying to argue lineage matters. Foreman was well aware he couldn't beat Holyfield/Lewis and was deliberately milking the title against easy opposition. Champions with easy defenses are expected to have good opponents mixed in with the bad but Foreman exclusively faced unranked opponents in his title defenses with not a single clear top 10 guy at all. Schulz getting multiple title shots is evidence of the guys he fought looking for easy paydays but not much else. Who did he beat?

 

Neither were champions. ESPN tried to push it so hard that Fury was defending his title in forgettable ten rounders but it was see through. The failed steroids test also slipped through the cracks.

 

Vitali arguably established lineage, it just depends on how you define it. Usyk was Ring champion before fighting Fury?

 

Thank you for your considered response.
While I appreciate that both Foreman - and to an extent Fury - were operating as 'lineals ' when the division was in flux, my wider point remains that the title was bestowed far too easily and, therefore, becomes redundant.
Foreman would have made himself 'the man ' by fighting - and defeating - the top contenders of his day... Bowe, Lewis, Tyson. He'd already lost to Holyfield.I
But he didn't really even try.
Same for Fury, although to a much worse degree.
Calling them lineal champions does a disservice to the standards we should expect as fans. You don't beat someone and suddenly inherit their wins - and the 'unbroken lineage ' - like some sort of superpower. You become the man of the era by defeating your main challengers to eradicate all arguments. Neither man really even attempted to do that.
I take your point that the alphabet titles aren't necessarily a good measuring stick. To be honest, I don't know what is... clearing out the top ten? Undisputed? A set number of title defences? I don't know but I just feel like the lineal title is ping -ponged around because we like to add some imaginary historical context and ultimately it probably causes more harm than good.

 

I still don’t know if any Ring champions who couldn’t at least be argued to have lineage then.

 

This sounds like an argument to scrap lineal to me?!!

 

But isn't who the main challengers are more arbitrary then who holds the lineal title? The rankings are working with the information available you're picking between many many fighters with padded records even in the old days. The main way you filter whose padded record is more impressive than someone elses is fighting the same people and having common opponents. The lineal belt centers the sport around a common goal. Without a commonly agreed upon "real belt" everyone can name their own champions and say they are the best and who gets to decide whose right? What regional champ should a challenger be aspiring to fight? While theres more than one champions the lineal title centers the sport around one.

People are kinda obssessed with undisputed because of the last 20-30 years of chaos but there has never been a consecutive decade where the HW belt has been truly undisputed. The only things that changed are the reasons the belt is undisputed. There are going to be multiple champs with major belts more often than not.