Guide me to the lineal heavyweight champion please.

You don't understand the concept i'm afraid.

 

Holmes was lineal from 80-85 then Michael Spinks then Tyson.

 

I consider Holmes lineal from the point of Ali’s retirement as champion, so 1979.

 

Ali was hardly retired if he fought Holmes. It's the same as Fury keeping the lineal during his break.

 

Yes. And before, when Ali was retired, he beat Ken Norton in a title bout. As Jack Johnson, who beat Burns by lineal championship and confirmed it later by beating Jeffries coming out of retirement. Holmes vs Norton it was seen as lineal, when it was not known that Ali would return.

 

You are right. But the fight with Norton, with Ali old and prolonging the decision to retire a few years ago, gave Holmes reason to be considered lineal if Ali didn't return. There is an overlap of events.

 

You could make the argument for Jem Mace, Joe Goss, and Paddy Ryan having held it before Sullivan.

I probably would in fact.

 

No, he wasn't.

The entire concept of the Lineal championship should've been canceled years ago as the whole boxing community are somehow too damn dumb to understand it.

 

This content is protected

Jim Jeffries retired as the lineal champion, but when he came out of retirement and lost to Jack Johnson - the lineal champion title went to Jack Johnson (the man who beat the man).
Similarly, the title of lineal champion passed from Mohammad Ali to Larry Holmes.
The line has actually only been broken 3 times in heavyweight history: Gene Tunney, Rocky Marciano and Lennox Lewis.
Now the lineal champion is Tyson Fury (beat Wlad) until he retires undefeated, or until someone beats him in the ring.

 

Looks pretty spot on.

 

The world title was initially created by merging the British Title with the American Title.

It nearly happened when Tom Sayers fought John C Heenan, but it ended in a draw, so both fighters kept their titles (just in case you found the Benn Eubank II draw frustrating).

It eventually happened when Jem Mace fought Tom Allen, and unified the two titles.

After that it gets complicated.

Mace retired with the title, and effectively took it to his grave.

Then Joe Goss fought tom Allen, with both titles on teh line again, so that in theory created a new lineage.

Joe Goss won but was defeated by Paddy Ryan.

Ryan then lost his title to John L Sullivan, and during Sullivan's reign, the format switches form LPR to Queensbury.

 

People are tying themselves in knots trying to explain this. Here's what I posted to the thread in another section:
It's a nonsense.
The literal definition of a lineal champion is an unbroken line back to the original. It's been severed many times and requires a consensus to start it again. Therefore it's already been broken.
The real problems come when you get someone like Tyson Fury, who milks the idea. He has the 'title' but hasn't been acting like a champion by fighting the main threats in the division. So, even if you believe in it - it has no credibility if you don't actually face meaningful opposition. Is Usyk now 'lineal' because he's faced better opponents recently? Can you change the title from one boxer to another if one doesn't want to face the other??
It's just a marketing gimmick to sell fights and is open to abuse. We should scrap the concept entirely.

 

I would probably argue for the following:

1. Sullivan -> Corbett (retires in 1895)

2. Fitzsimmons -> Jeffries (retires in 1905)

3. Burns -> Johnson -> Willard -> Dempsey -> Tunney (retires in 1928)

4. Schmeling -> Sharkey -> Carnera -> Baer -> Braddock -> Louis (retires in 1949)

5. Charles -> Walcott -> Marciano (retires in 1956)

6. Patterson -> Johansson -> Patterson -> Liston -> Ali (loses licence in 1967)

7. Frazier -> Foreman -> Ali -> L. Spinks -> Ali -> Holmes -> M. Spinks -> Tyson -> Douglas -> Holyfield -> Bowe -> Holyfield -> Moorer -> Foreman -> Briggs -> Lewis -> Rahman -> Lewis (retires in 2004)

8. W. Klitschko -> Fury