Real Current Linear World Champions

Its not exactly a stupid question, a lot of the divisions haven't got two people regarded as number 1 and number 2 unanimously. This makes it impossible to become the linear champ by number one fighting number two because someone else could easily have a claim to be one of those fighters.
There are no rankings about that anyone considers to be the 'true' rankings.

 

Calzaghe is not the linear champion Virgil Hill lost the IBF and WBA titles to the then WBO champion Michalczewski who became the linear champion but was stripped of the IBF and WBA after a couple of weeks. Michalczewski then lost to González who lost to Zsolt Erdei who is the current linear champion.

 

This is the same point that I have made numerous times in regards the the lineal champ. However, people on this site swear by Ring Magazine's rankings and that's what they go by.

 

And i say to that what makes the ring rankings better than any other? Especially now its owned by a boxer/promoter!

 

Trust me, I've made that very same point. Some try to argue with me that the #1 vs. #2 rule has always been in existence. This of course is misleading. When there was 1 org, and there was a vacant belt, that org's no.1 and no.2 contenders would fight for that belt. The resulting winner would start a new lineage. Now that there is more than one belt, the 1 vs. 2 argument for starting a new lineage doesn't really make much sense, as there is no consensus no.1 and no.2

 

I was suprised nobody had mentioned that before me BigReg, i take it you're bored at arguing that point now?

 

You don't know how much flak I've taken over this issue. I've hammered the point home plenty of times only to be attacked by people who think Ring Magazine has all the answers.

 

People who in the same sentence say the ring belt doesn't mean ****.

 

How the **** is there even an argument you can make for Tarver or Witter being linear? :?

 

well... witter was royally screwed by zab.. who happened to be linear (cba look that up, so he is for now cos i said he was), and should have won - so the "true" rankings mean he's linear. plus we dont like hatton, cos he's a manc, and witter gonna **** him up badly!!

and tarver was the man who beat rjj, who beat everyone else on the planet - or he could have done, and when he fought bhop, he'd come from the movies, and that didnt count - only an exhibition!!!

HA

i made a very well balanced, thought out argument

 

Oh dear!

 

Light-heavyweight title history.

Bear with me guys because this is complicated.

When Boxing split in the early sixties there became two governing bodies, the WBC and the WBA.

The both recognised the same champion, Willie Pastrano. Heres the light heavy line.

Willie Pastrano (Linear) 1963 - 1965 (Lost to Jose Torres)
#
Jose Torres (Linear) 1965 - 1966 (lost to Dick Tiger)
#
Dick Tiger (Linear) 1966 - 1968 (lost to Bob Foster)
#
Bob Foster (Linear) 1968 - 1974.

Now here's where it gets really complicated.

Bob Foster had been fighting at heavyweight and gave up his light-heavyweight titles in 1974 and the lineage was broken.

The vacant WBC was won by John Conteh, while the WBA was picked up by Victor Emilio Galindez. The titles passed through various hands until WBC champion Dwight Muhammed Qawi and WBA champion Michael Spinks staged the first ever light-heavy unification fight in 1983.

Spinks won and rejoined the lineage.

When Spinks vacated both titles in 1985, the lineage was broken again as JB Williamson became WBC champ and Marvin Johnson the WBA titilist.

In 1987 Thomas Hearns beat Dennis Andries (who had beaten Williamson) to become WBC champion, while Virgil Hill beat Leslie Steward (who had beaten Marvin Johnson) to become WBA champ.

Hearns never defended his WBC strap and headed instead to the newly formed super-middleweight division. At this point the WBC drops out of the picture.

In 1991 Hearns (still in reality the legitimate WBC champion) returned to 175 pounds and beat Virgil Hill. At this point the lineage was in effect rejoined.

Hearns lost his WBA/Linear title to Iran Barkley in 1992.

Barkley vacated and returned to super-middle and again the linear title was no more.

But, 1994, still "The Man" at light-heavyweight, Barkley returned to 175 pounds and fought Henry Maske. Maske won and became linear champion.

Maske then lost to Virgil Hill in 1996 in a IBF/WBA unification.

Hill then lost to Dariusz Michalczwki in 1997 with the IBF, WBA & WBO titles being on the line.

Michalczwki gave up the IBF & WBA crowns but was still Linear champion until he lost to Julio Gonzalez.

Gonzalez lost to Erdei.

There you have it. Linear champion Zsolt Erdei.

Simple enough for you?

 

off topic but nice to see most of that list filled by british fighters!!!!!

 

Having WBC title is not required for capture linear title, it takes #1 to fight #2 or #3
(Jones was not even fighting at LHW when Michalczewski beat Hill for the linear title)

... same like its is not required to have any title or even being just slightly
relevant to the division, in order to be Ring champion ... Hopkins/Calzaghe