Lineal Champion?

The man who beat the reigning linneal champion or the winner of a fight between the Consensus #1 Contender and Consensus #2 Contenders if the Linneal Champion retires with the title. Personally I think when a linnear champion retires with the title a tournament should be held with the top 4-8 Contenders to determine the new Champion.

 

I would start out by saying that there is no set definition with rigid rules. Linear champion is a concept that says you beat the man, who beat the man, who beat the man dating all the way back to the first Queensberry lineal gloved champion, which for heavyweights was John L. Sullivan.

However sometimes a champion has retired with the lineal title. Jeffries, Tunney, Louis, and Marciano, and Lewis come to mind. In such cases, the lineal concept had to be flexible, as you can’t trace it back by from the man, who beat the man, who beat the man, because the last man retired!

What has happened was the #1 person out there ( Which today is Wlad ) Was matched vs a quality fighter, with the winner producing the new linear champion.

We saw this before when Jeffries retired and Hart and Root fought.

We saw this before when Tunney retired, and Shcmeling and Shakrey fought, only to see the new linear champion win via low blow DQ.

We saw this briefly when Walcott and Charles fought for the title ( 1949 ) before Charles beat Louis who for the moment was “ retired “ as linear champion.

We also saw this when Marciano retired as linear champion, and Patterson fought Moore.

This brings us to 2008. Lewis retired with the linear title in 2003. Since then, Wlad has been the #1 guy for the past 4-5 years. He is facing another un-defeated champion. Under such circumstance, I do believe it’s about as good as it gets. If boxing wants to keep the term linear / lineal concept alive, this is the next link in the chain.

There are some conservative based historians. I respect them, but the truth is you can’t claim anyone beat the man who beat then man post Gene Tunney because he took the true lineal title to his grave. You can say linear post Tunney, but only with flexible rules.

Some historians, media people and internet web site owners are pondering this issue. Yes—I am a Wald fan and have said my piece. If Wlad wins, I think boxing will have a new lineal/linear champion. It will be good for the sport.

 

My opinion is that re establishment of lineage has historicaly always rested on public acceptance of a claim. Rightly or wrongly this has always been the case.

When Jim Corbett retired Bob Fitzsimmons defeated Peter Maher for the vacant title. He lost his claim to Tom Sharkey under dubious circumstances. The claim evapourated altogether when Corbett came out of retirment.

When Marvin Hart defeated Jack Root for the vacant title the claim recieved verry little public credibility. It was only really taken seriously when Tommy Burns started touring the world fighting and defeating the champions of all key boxing nations. If Burns had not done this the claim would probably have withered on the vine.

When Max Schmeling beat Jack Sharkey by DQ his claim received verry little credibility. After he beat Young Stribling (Then the No2 contender) his claim was generaly accepted. After that the winner of the Schmeling Sharkey rematch was always going to be the man.

My final observation is that aceptance of a title claim depends more upon the encore than the claim itself. If the claim is followed up by one or more wins over top contenders the critics are generally sidelined. Vitally Klitschko had a prety good claim after he beat Sanders and following it up with a win over another top contender might have silenced the doubters.

 

When the champion retires and doesn't come back, a fight between the #1 contender and another high ranked contender has historically been used to recognize the new linear champion. I emphasize the word recognize, because that's all there is to it. The only meaning a fight has is the meaning the governing body used to give to it. That's different now because there are several governing bodies.

I would say the Ring Magazine is still the best source out there and has historically been pretty unbiased. They recognised the winner of Vitali Klitschko vs Corrie Sanders as new linear champion in 2004, a fine decision in my eyes. Considering that Wladimir Klitschko has been the widely recognised top man in the division for two years and Ibragimov being another top contender, i would have no trouble with this fight being recognised as being for the linear title.

 

I think I would give Klitchsko the lineage title at this point in time. When Lennox retired, There were 4 people with a claim to the title. Chris Byrd was the longest surviving of these 4, and he lost to Vladimir. That gives the best surviving claim, in my eyes. By holding this unification match, the winner deserves the lineal title. Though i guess this is reviewable, in the future if say Vitali fights again or if a new dominant champion unifies all the other belts. I think, it is not really until some time after that lineage is usually confirmed in these circumstances, and at this stage, there is only such a thing as a lineage claim, for some time.

 

IMO the last Lineage champion was Bruno Girard at 168lbs...

Once the orginial universally recognized World champion's line of lineage is broken, you cannot, by definition, have a true lineage champion.

 

This pretty much sums it up in my own view.

Although I can't really argue with any person who wishes to narrow it (the definition) a little further. I suppose some could differ regarding what follows the "or" in your post.

 

The Undisputed WBC title showdown between Maskaev and Peter is the most important fight, they have a greater claim to be THE champion due to it being the lineage of the last champion Lennox Lewis`s belt.

When Lewis retired Vitali fought WBO champion Sanders for Lewis`s vacant title, WBC and RING. It was billed as being for the lineal heavywieght title. Vitali won, Sanders was stripped by the WBO for fighting for the WBC belt but technically Vitali unfied the WBO lineage with Lewis`s REAL title and was awarded the RING belt.
Vitali got injured before his fight with Rahman, Rahman fought for the lineal title and when Vitali retired Rahman became champion, Rahman lost to Maskaev. Maskaev pulled out of his defence against Peter, Peter became interim champion and fights Maskaev in march for the Undisputed WBC title. The true lineage from Lennox rests in that fight.

The WBO title Sultan Ibragamov holds came about from Brewster beating Wlad for the vacant WBO title that was stripped from Sanders for fighting vitali for the WBC title.
The lineage of that title therefore doesnt amount to much.

Wlads IBF title comes from him beating Byrd who gained the vacant IBF title in an eliminater at the time that Lewis was THE real Undisputed champion. Nobody gave Byrd credit as world champion whilst Lewis was THE champ. It was an irrelevant title which Byrd truly lost to Golota despite getting a gift decision.

Therefore holding the IBF title today from that lineage amounts to less than the true claim as champion which is Maskaev.


Wlad Klitschko is the most famous and well known name but that doesnt make him THE champion now or if he gains the never recognised WBO title and its tenuous lineage which merely flows from Wlads loss to Brewster for the vacant title.

When the returning Vitali fights the Maskaev vs. Peter winner then the true lineage of Lewis`s title which Vitali retired with and subsequently was claimed by Maskaev will then belong to Vitali.

Of course, if Lennox Lewis comes back then he truly holds the lineal title and by fighting Vitali in a rematch of their 2003 fight would crown a true lineal Undisputed champion.

Without Vitali or Lewis then there will only be an Undisputed champion when the IBF,WBA and the WBC titles are unified along with the lineal title held by WBC champion Maskaev.

 

Odd was wrong there, the fight was not a fight to the finish, it was for 25 rounds. Hardly One of thsos Fights to the finish like Gans Nelson.

 

But its pretty well known the Corbett Fitz fight was a 25 rounder. Have we been getting it wrong for 110 years or so?/

To many Docs and and films, have said it was for 25 rounds.