The concept of the "lineal championship"

Now from what I can gather the "lineal championship" is a fallacy in it's current form.

too many times I hear people say "fighter A is not the lineal champion because he hasn't beaten 1/2 when he was 1/2"

now I've been doing quite a bit of research lately and I have no idea where the above definition originated.

Now if I'm completely wrong here I'd love someone to point me in the right direction but I think I've got a good case.

As far as I'm concerned there is no "lineal championship" there is however, a concept of lineage: Fighter A has beaten Fighter B and is recognised by everyone as the champion of the division and does not lose his status until he retires it himself or is beaten.

Now by my reckoning Fighter a and Fighter B do not always have to be ranked 1 and 2 for the winner to be the recognised champion.

For example Root and Hart were picked by Jeffries. Sullivan was awarded the original belt despit never facing peter jackson. Holmes beat a retired Ali. Robinson beat Tommy Bell who by my reckoning was certainly not in the top 2 of the world. Valdez beat Briscoe etc etc the list goes on.

So who decided that it had to be 1 v 2?

Of course the ring has followed boxing's champions since Dempsey and it never stripped a champion until it ceased publication in 89. When it returned and failed to just award the belt to the current "Men" in each division, it just restarted it's own ranking system and awarded belts again in 01 which unfortunately meant some discrepancy began between who they should have awarded and who they did award (namely DM vs RJJ).

By my reckoning now, every "Man" in the division has a ring belt and every Ring champion is "Man" <- bit of minor set theory there.

Of course every one of these champions is generally accepted as the champion apart from Wlad, who gets some minor contention because he never faced Vitali. Which brings me full circle, if recognised champions before where recognised without having to be 1/2 whilst beating 1/2 why is there a sudden urge that he has to have beaten vitali to be considered the champ?

Of course this applies to other champs as well, for instance Marquez, where castillo and lazcano really the two best lightweights in the world? who decided this? the ring ranked them as such but was that a consensus?

I've rambled but basically I'm asking:

who decided that beating 1/2 whilst ranked 1/2 was the essential criteria? Especially in light of the names I have listed here.


as a final thought I think it's more to do with a claim. there's no hard and fast formula because sometimes the business side of boxing takes over.

 

I would respectfully disagree about the current situation, I think the media do recognise wlad as the heavyweight champion.

The point about holmes beating ali is crucial I believe, holmes was number 1 and ali was a man coming out of retirement, yet that is what it took for holmes to be classed as champion.

Charles wasn't universally recognised until louis came out of retirement either.

I will check your thread out and see what I make of it tho!

 

This is what i'm talking about it, "i operate according to this rule" the lineal champion itself is just a personal opinion.

I think the concept of lineage is important but as for who is "the man" when the former man retires well that isn't always done according to a set rule. Like you say it's about who has the strongest claim.

Haye himself acknowledges that he is ranked behind wlad, vitali himself has stated he has no intention of ever challenging wlad's status.

Wlad is the only heavyweight with a legitimate claim imo, but it's only my opinion.

Some people look for full unification in cases of vacancy, some look for a boxoff, some look for a man coming out of retirement.

Considering the ring award a belt, don't charge fee's and rank irrespective of title's i'm happy following their current champs.

 

I agree with the concept of linearity i.e. Martinez was the man who.... Beat hopkins so regardless of belts he should be seem as champ imo. But the initial man doesn't have to be, history shows this, 1 v 2.

 

That I 100% agree with. The concept of lineage is important and everyone buys into it to some degree.

What i'm interested in is someone says "wlad isn't the lineal champion" how do they justify that claim? This 1/2 v 1/2 is an idea but that's all it is, it has never been "the rule". Take the middleweight picture from 2000 for instance, they had to have a tournament to decide a true champion.

Beating the man is crucial imo. But if the man retires then you just look at who has the best claim imo.

 

yes that is my toughts.

this whole 1/2 beating 1/2 is a concept recently created by some fans on a forum. or maybe a definition given by a boxing writer for an ideal situation.

the truth of the matter is that the media and the boxing universe as a whole recognise whoever they want as champ.

at heavyweight we have wlad, vitali and haye.

haye recognises he's ranked behind wlad, so that takes him out.

vitali has said he will never fight his brother, so that takes him out.

Wlad is the only legitimate heavyweight with a legitimate claim. if haye beats him, haye takes that claim also.

when robinson beat bell for the vacant welterweight championship, noone cared who robinson faced, they wanted him sanctioned in a fight against the best available man willing to fight him. noone today says "robinson wasn't champ till he beat gavilan in 49" being "the man" is about recognition.

ideally it's a boxoff between 1 and 2, but it does not have to be the case, as the current situation shows.

the majority of people following boxing and writing about boxing recognise wlad as the legitimate champ and that is what matters.

 

this is pretty much what i wanted to say in my opening post, but is couldn't find the right words :good