Guide me to the lineal heavyweight champion please.

These things aren't as black and white as some linealists want them to be. Holmes' case is similar to Ezzard Chalres' in my view.

Ezzard Charles beat Jersey Joe Walcott when they were considered number 1 and number 2 in the division. But this victory didn't bring him the universal recognition as the heavyweight champion. He was only awarded the NBA belt at the time. When Joe Louis came back from retirement and Ezzard beat him, he won the NYSAC belt and started to be considered as THE heavyweight champion by The Ring Magazine. I guess number 1 heavyweight in the world beating the former "lineal" champion was enough to crown the champ. But UK didn't view him as such. They considered Lee Savold to be the world champion. Ony after Louis defeated Savold, they recognized Charles as THE champion. As you can clearly see it was retroactive.

Now, let's go back to Larry Holmes. It's a fact that he was viewed as THE heavyweight champion, especially looking at the status Michael Spinks had when he defeated him, even after the IBF stripped him. Just like in the case Ezzard Charles, he had multiple claims to his name, to be called as such.

1. His first claim to the crown came in the early 1980, when Mike Weaver defeated John Tate for the vacant WBA belt. Larry Holmes already defeated Weaver a year prior. This was enough for The Ring Magazine to crown him the champion. Just like in the case of Ezzard Charles being recognized the champion by UK public after Joe Louis beat Savold. Holmes held the WBC version of the title and he already beat the current WBA titlist.

2. Like it or not, beating Muhammad Ali gave him a strong claim to call himself THE heavyweight champion. Ali of course retired and was out of action for over a year, but he was still the man who beat the man. Just like Ezzard Charles was almost unanimously proclaimed the champ after he beat Louis, the same case can be made for Holmes. He was clear number 1 guy in the division, and just beat the returning champion.

3. By the end of 1981, Larry Holmes was The Ring Magazine champion, clear number 1 in the division, and you can make the case that he was the man who beat the man. Number 2 rated heavyweight in the world was Mike Weaver and number 3 guy was Gerry Cooney. Since Holmes already beat Weaver, beating the next best heavyweight in Cooney gives him another piece of the claim to being THE heavyweight champion of the world. There are precedences when the match up between number 1 vs number 3 crowned the champion, especially when the second position was... iffy. Wlad vs Chagaev is a good example of that.

4. What supported his claim in the eyes on the public was him beating the guys who were perceived as victors against Ali, that didn't get the decision - Ken Norton and Earnie Shavers.

So no matter how you slice it, Larry Holmes was THE heavyweight champion of the world, not just one of the titlist. He had a strong claim made out of several weaker claims. Just like Ezzard Charles.

 

Unpopular opinion the NABF and USBA titles was more serious than the WBA title of Holmes's era. The USBA of course became the IBF.

 

The WBA title was a joke back then, but still, it was a piece of the crown. We need to keep these lineal discussions separate from alphabet belts discussions as much as possible. They are a point of reference, but they are not essential. Til this day (Deontay's voice) I see people claiming Wlad wasn't THE champ, because he didn't collect all of the belts of his era. Imagine having this conversation in 100 years when there are 6 or even 7 major world titles. Some people will claim only becoming undisputed with 7 belts starts the new lineage. Which is ridiculous looking at the first days of the sport.

 

Y'all're deep into some details I don't want to get into, but if you want to know stuff about bare knuckle and boxing traditions before the invention of the term lineal champion, I can do that for you.

Looks like the modern boxing stuff has plenty of folks who reckon they know best but if anyone's curious for context around that I can provide those answers, for the most part.

 

I’d love a summary of the pre-lineal/bare knuckle traditions and how the sport was looked at.

To some degree, from a non-researcher point of view like mine, it seemed that the best of the U.S. and the best of the UK were considered the top dogs, and if they met the winner was considered the true world champ. There was boxing elsewhere, but if you were going to be considered tops on the world stage you had to either go to the US or UK to prove it (and, not incidentally, make a decent living at it) or lure one or both of those champs to wherever you were to fight you).

 

I'll do my best at an overview that isn't too overwhelming. Anything you want more detail on just ask.

I worded it as traditions because lineal is not something that was a contemporary term. I'm not sure if these guys have covered this yet, but lineal is a term that comes from journalists looking backward and to boxing traditions to make a historical claim for a then current champion. Journalists, not historians.

A lot of the traditions did become things people still attribute to lineal, but a lot of them did not.

So, when you look at a list of lineal champions that goes back in time before the 60s, you're looking at a list of retroactive reward based on the traditions journalists believed in. I've seen it said "best case, consensus" etc. That's sometimes true and sometimes is not, but what it true for every champion on lineal lists is they were placed there by journalists who were reporting out of their depth.

You should not then look to a source of lineal champions as a source for legitimate champions.

For example, Cyber Boxing Zone has listed Figg, Pipes, Taylor, Broughton. Figgs was the guys who had the authority to name a champion so in the year 1725 you'd expect the average boxing fan to tell you the champion is Nathaniel Peartree not James Figg. In fact, you'd tell me James Figg had retired a year ago and Peartree was the best man under the sun.

There are in fact about 5 championship fights and 3 different champions between Figg's retirement and Pipe's claim.

Just being extra super clear, traditional champion does not equate to lineal champion. Lineal is something made up in the 60s, traditional, or historical, means I haven't the authority to change the facts for you to fit any current narrative. It is the history of what actually happened.


Alright, so let's first talk about what exactly British boxing was. Take yourself back to the medieval period, when boxing was illegal because it disfigures the face of god. The loophole was a duel. I shouldn't have to cover dueling history I don't think but if you're interested I will tell you about it. So in middle ages England they duel, not box, no sport allowed but the martial art is. In other places in Europe, like say Italy, they did box, but it was like a team thing that involved knocking the other side over a bridge, into water, and it was also illegal for being anti-God.

The puritans come around and are a real pain in the ass trend to the aristocrats of Europe, BE included.

So, in order to engage the Puritan churches is a sort of culture war the aristocrats started to dig things up from their ancient past and show the working class of their nations things pagans did that they should be proud of. The renaissance and also America were born as result.

In England a fella named Richard Dover put together a remake of the ancient Olympics in the 1640s,, I really want to say 1642, but I'm shooting from the hip and don't know.

Boxing was the popular event. Duelists, such as James Figg later, saw opportunity to make money.

Just wanted to frame everything properly. In America, boxing exists but is rule-less. America barely gets any of the news of what is going on in England, in boxing terms anyway, but in Europe, as a martial art, boxing is strong, and in England boxing is becoming sport.

James Figg became champion of all of England by touring England and taking on any man who would challenge him. - Takes on all comers is a historically accurate tradition of the lineal title.

Figg would retire and allow his students to fight for the title of champion, sometimes he would simply elect them. - Upon retirement 1 vs 2 is somewhat true but to bring ranks into it is intellectually dishonest. There are not ratings prior to the 1920s. However, a retiring champion electing a new champion would become a tradition for sometime, but rejected by the lineal retrospective.

After Figg had retired the Italians had challenged to prove Venetian boxing was superior over English boxing. Figg would ref the match, and cheat for his student to win, but in the end it didn't matter, English prestige was secured by the W anyway. - This is a tradition that is historically accurate but ignored by lineal hindsight.

After Figg's death his star pupils disagree over who is champion. This is your first dispute in history that isn't handled by Figg himself, each student had their own venue and hosted their own fights. After some time and 7 fights the smoke had cleared and Broughton was the clear champion. Why journalists took it upon themselves to cut HW title fights and their champions from record books and claim nothing happened between Figg opening his venue and Pipes claiming to be champion after Figg's death is beyond me but it is another instance where a clear 1 and/or 2 were formed, met, and the 1 was decided.

By the 1790s the aristocrats of England got frustrated with the wrong type of person winning and established a club to make sure the champion was English enough.

When Molyneaux came over with stories about being an American champion, which was possible to some degree but there was no organized sport, rules, and the money he talks about was def off ... he'd've crippled the US GDP at the time if true, but Moly came claiming champion and fought well enough the English agreed. The first belts ever made for any combat sports trophy were made for these two - This is another historically accurate tradition that is for some reason cut from lineal. "There is no physical belt" ... there was ... heaps actually.

These are the glory days of English bare knuckle boxing. 1810 until about 1825. Cribb would retire without taking an L as champion, and so he elected the next champion, Spring. Promise it's gonna matter in a minute.

 

Then Jem Ward happened. Jem headed a gang, he cheated and bought his way to the title, then he proceeded to hold it ransom. He was meant to fight James Burke to defend his ill-gotten title. He had Burke raise funds multiple times, multiple times he took the money, and multiple times he'd retire and claim he would crown the next champion. One of these occasions he put Burke up against a student/member of the gang. Burke accidentally killed this fool. Of course none of these times did Burke get given the championship status by Ward. Ward felt Burke was not English enough and was too stupid. Burke was born in London by two parents also born in london. He was deaf.

Never, actually, did Ward give up his title to Burke. They didn't fight for it. Ward never handed it over for any reason, he just took money and pulled the same scam some five or six times. So the money men got angry and set to work dissolving boxing in the UK and building boxing new in America.

Burke, the English contender never allowed the title because wasn't English enough, fought the Irish champion in America for the English title. - A lineal champion is allowed to retire without losing and reclaim their title ... this is where lineal retrospective narrative can't seem to pick a lane. Ward, in reality, is not seen as champion in 1833. He was stripped by his audience. That's true. That was also true before 1833. That's been true since 1827. So why do they see him as champion after his retirements until Burke? I can't say, but I can say people probably argue over retirement because the journalists who came up with the idea in the first place never really hashed out what they were saying. You can tell me Ward was champion from 1825-1840 or you can tell me Ward retired in 27 so Crawley is champ 27-32 until Burke become champion in 33 because Ward retired in 27, but acknowledging his retirements until the course of history forces you to acknowledge a new champion is really inconsistent and pushes an ideal that never existed. - Burke is not the man who beat the man and CBZ is really trying to force a man-who-beat-the-man narrative where it doesn't belong while breezing past or grossly simplifying those points in history. Broughton never fought Figg. Burke never fought Ward. both cases are messy but none of that matters to a journalist whose only goal is to make a list of names and compelling narrative.

Sidebar on that, I don't criticize CBZ when i say journalists. I mean Nat Fleischer and Richard Fox and such. CBZ's only criticism is not having the balls to correct their mistakes.

Anyway, now America has rules for its boxing. Money men came over, taught boxing, did what they could to up the US and downplay the UK... even though they're Brits. It was about money and controlling the title.

After a generation born into a nation that does box the investment is complete and the American champion fights the British champion for world honors. It isn't the first time but it is the last time. The promotional campaign that began in the 1830s because of Jem Ward was so powerful John L didn't win. A draw was enough.

Think I caught all the major stuff.

From a guy like Corbett's perspective, when he retired and elected two to fight for his title, then unretired and took back his title, he did nothing wrong, and nothing that was new. That's why Jeffries did it too. They knew the traditions but not the lineal story that would get made up later. Neither man ever heard the term lineal champion when they were boxing. In fact, both men having a fight for their title, that's just them being nice. Being giving. They certainly could have simply elected a champion.

This sort of shenanigans and knowing the worst of what traditionally came from boxing champions, is why sanctioning bodies ultimately became a thing. To make sure the champion is English enough! I'm kidding, but also it's a bit true. They're to give fans a more clear sport and wrangle in the boxers from their greed... make sure the right man wins.





I'm not trying to brag, there's plenty I don't know, but I can probably bring more details if you want more. I didn't cite every instance of say an elected champion or retirement and recall because the post would be so effing long, but if you want something that in depth it would be kinda cool to do it.

 

Thank you. Fascinating recap from a viewpoint I’ve never heard as for how disjointed it all was — which makes sense given word of a big fight in Europe (or elsewhere) may never have been heard of by many around the world or learned off years later after word traveled by boat across the waters and then made its way to the cognoscenti via a pre-telephone game of telephone (I’m sure fairly average fights were related as epic and fairly average fighters revered as greats upon repeated retellings).

I did know of the retired champ naming the challengers to fight for his crown (which would be limited to his knowledge of the world scene and perhaps lean toward his buddies or even some corruption if someone placed a small bag of gold in front of him with a suggestion to let so-and-so fight for it, not unlike the WBA bagmen of later years). That carried some weight really through the midpoint or so of the 20th century in some cases iirc, with Joe Louis kind of choosing his successor (or something like that, I’m not at liberty to research it right now).

One observation and a question:

1) I would regard the winner of any bout between Peartree and a partridge to be legit for the 12 Days of Christmas championship.

Maybe we can start a thread for Pearatree vs. Danny “Partridge” Bonaduce to settle it!

2) What is BE? You mention it in the part about puritans. I’m sure I’ll slap my forehead and say ‘duh’ when you answer, but I cannot decipher what that stands for and it’s bugging me.

 

I tried so hard to stay away from short hand. BE = British Empire. I was going to throw Australia in but dropped her because I had already ran long.

 

OK, I kept trying to make the B stand for boxing and drawling a blank. Makes sense.

 

I believe Louis's successor or the guy who'd fight Walcott was determined by a 4 person tourney Charles v Baksi and Maxim v Kahut. It is not referenced many places but this seems to be what happened. Kahut beat Maxim and the record books give Kahut the W but the ref had it for Maxim and most people had it for Maxim and if was considered a robbery so Maxim fought Charles in the eliminator.

 

Problem 1
Something seems off about ignoring Vitali in 2003 but installing Wlad in 2009 based on #1 v #3...

2003
Vitali (#1) v Sanders (#3)
Byrd was (#2)

2009
Wlad (#1) v Chagaev (#3)
Vitali was (#2)

Logically by the same standard for Wlad's reign, Vitali had already started a new lineage. However creating a lineage via #1 v #3 doesn't seem very definitive. Do the Ukrainians even recognize Wlad as ever being the lineal champion?

Problem 2
Yhere is a problem of what counts as a retirement. Do we go with (A) date of retirement announcement or (B) when they last fought?

Lewis announced retirement in Feb 2004, but his last fight was Jun 2003. If it's 2003 then Vitali became next Lineal. If it's 2004 Vitali doesn't become lineal.

Option (A) - date of last fight
If we take it from date of Lewis' last fight, then Vitali #1 became lineal champion against Sanders#3 in 2003 and reigned until September 2012 (last fight against Charr). October 2013, Wlad #1 v Povetkin #2 establishes the next lineage.

Lewis |R-2003|
Vitali |R-2012|
Wlad (2013) > Fury > Usyk (2024~

Option (B) - date of retirement announcement
If we take it from date of Lewis "announcing retirement", then Wlad #1 becomes champion in 2009 against Chagaev #3. However this also means recognizing Fury's retirement announcement in Oct 2016 when he also coincidentally tested positive for PEDs. Then in October 2017, Joshua (TBRB#1) establishes yet another lineage by beating Klitschko (Ring #1)...

Lewis|R-2004|
Wlad (2009) > Fury |R-2016|
Joshua (2017) > Ruiz Jr. > Joshua > Usyk (2021~


Solution
This all seems very convoluted and messy though (especially in the 4 belt era). Perhaps better to just recognize a fight there is no dispute over to create a new lineage, let's say Undisputed?

Lewis |R-2004|
Usyk (2024~

Nice and clean

 

You are correct, there is a clear double standard being applied to retirements.

They are trying to say they don't recognize Vitali because Lewis hadn't officially "announced" his retirement. Then in the next breath they want to look back to when someone actually last fought to mark retirement date (seemingly in a defence of Fury who first announced retirement in 2016. Then doubled down on the retirement in 2017).

It's silly really to pretend Vitali didn't exist. No one really believes Wlad was the man of the division back in 2009. Heck when Haye fought Wlad in 2011, the everyman understood if Haye won, then he would get to fight Big Bro (the real guy at the summit of the division)

 

It was a unique situation. It was off. Vitali couldn't unify with Wlad so they had to replace Vitali instead of just letting them fight.

Theres nothing wrong with a 1v3 to make a lineage. Most times in the past the matchup for the new lineage was determined by tournament.

In hindsight I think a better requirement would be 2 champions fighting for the belt assuming there are 2 or more major champs. In which case Vitali not Sanders would have been out in 2004. If you have one champ and hes retiring you have to make an arbitrary choice. But if you have 2 or more existing champions why should other people be brought into the mix when they can just be the 1st title defense with so much less controversy? In this case Wlad v Chagaev was perfect. The WBA had 2 champions but Wlad beat Chagaev who had the H2H.

 

I don’t even know if the concept of “ lineage “ is even real anymore. Too many junctions in boxing history where a champion retired, or was stripped or died prematurely and the belt had to be fought over to crown a new king. Throw in the addition of multiple belts and politics and pretty much killed the concept.