Do any of you my fellow history freaks researched the use of the term "lineal champion"? When was it first used? We definitely didn't see it in the first decades of the heavyweight division. Jim Jeffries wasn't considered a champion coming back from retirement to face Johnson. Neither was Joe Louis facing Ezzard Charles. Since the birth of the alphabet bodies, there wasn't a time during the NBA & NYSAC era where they would recognize separate champions. When Muhammad Ali, then WBC, NYSAC & The Ring Magazine champion faced Earnie Terrell, the WBA titleholder, he wasn't called "the lineal champion". The public didn't call him that when he faced Frazier. Neither he was called that way after winning back his title from Leon Spinks, when he was the WBA and The Ring Magazine Champion and Larry Holmes was the WBC titleholder. I don't think The Easton Assassin himself was called that way, even tho he was considered THE heavyweight champion holding only 1 alphabet belt at the time. Michael Spinks wasn't called that way in the build up to Mike Tyson fight either. The first use of this term I'm aware of, was during the George Foreman second reign, where he vacated all of his alphabet belts. He was called the linear champion, so was Shannon Briggs after he beat him. After Lewis beat Briggs, you didn't hear people calling him the WBC & the linear champion. But then, after he became undisputed and then vacated 2 of his belts, HBO announcers still called him "undisputed, universally recognized, linear heavyweight champion". He himself was proud to retire as the lineal champion in his retirement speech. Then I think we had a small break of using the lineal terminology. Wladimir Klitschko was THE heavyweight champion, but he and the public didn't call him lineal. Seems like it was Tyson Fury who resurrected the term as the promotional tool after he no longer held any alphabet titles. Am I correct with the chronology? Was there any particular moment when THE heavyweight champion started to be called lineal? Or these are two completely different concepts, as THE champion is a current thing, and lineage is established after some time passes. Was that just another way of people coping with the billions of belts being distributed, longing for the one champion era?
Can't speak for the Ali to Holmes title but I do remember M Spinks being called the linear champion, during the build to the Tyson fight.
Promotional gimmick used especially at heavyweight in recent times. It's allowed Tyson Fury to take part in meaningless fights while pretending they have some historical significance.
I would agree with you if it wasn't for the fact that the lineage is traced more by a boxing nerds than boxers and promoters themselves.
I am the lineal champion of this topic. @MaccaveliMacc started it, you replied to him, and I replied to you.
I got to knock you out, sorry. Now I'm 2x lineal champion like Floyd Patterson, Evander Holyfield and Lennox Lewis.
Totally understand that. And I get the theory of it. I do feel that people kind of tie themselves in knots over it, trying to unravel the lineage because it relies on consensus and opinion, to a degree. But my main criticism is that it's been used, in recent years - specifically by Tyson Fury - as a marketing tool which has taken the pressure off him to actually have more meaningful fights. Because, you know, he's the lineal champion. And that's the problem... you can run around, call yourself 'the man going back to John L Sullivan' and you're under no obligation to actually 'defend' it against any top contenders. The lineal title when in 'the wrong hands' is open to abuse (could you see Ali doing this, for example? Or Lewis?) So I'd feel far more comfortable about using the term if the holder of it respected the greats it is supposed to be linked to. But Fury is not cut from their cloth. And we should call him out on it.
I think the term comes from 3+ champs becoming normal in the 80s. Thus the need to designate the "real one". While there was often a 2nd or even a 3rd fighter with a claim to the title before this these claims were resolved quickly and the norm was having 1 champion that most people accepted. Especially after globalization. During the past 40 years the norm is having 3-4 champions. One thing I noticed is earlier title claimants had some alternate case to be the "real champion". Whereas the alphabet bodies will strip the lineal champ and give the title to someone else. While alternate belts were a thing stripping the lineal champ really wasn't before Ali. And people by and large don't take stripping titles seriously.
I think the first case of that was when Max Schmelling was stripped by NYSAC, due to him not willing to face Sharkey in the rematch. The belt wasn't given to anyone else tho.
The NBA(now WBA) gave the belt to Stribling after he beat Tuffy Griffiths who promptly lost to Schmeling. The ABA recognized Sharkeys fights with Mickey Walker and Primo Carnera as title fights. They'd had Sharkey as champ before the Schmeling fight for beating Tommy Loughran. Also Schmeling won his belt by DQ in a fight for the vacant belt. Thats basically inviting rival claimants. But unlike today there was an organic boxing reason for that disagreement.
Stripping belts goes back a long way. I am aware of at least 4 occasions where titles were stripped prior to Schmeling: In 1887 the Police Gazette stripped John L Sullivan of their belt, awarding the title to Jake Kilrain when he fought James Smith. In 1892 the Police Gazette stripped Frank Slavin of their belt, awarding the title to John L Sullivan. In 1897 the Police Gazette stripped Bob Fitzsimmons of their belt. In 1913 the IBU stripped Jack Johnson of their title.
Not even Tyson Fury can ruin the lineal championship title. And his best chance for that would be to retire as a lineal champion. I mean before the fight with Usyk. If he wins Usyk, no one will have the right to object to his title of lineal champion. And if he loses, he won't be the lineal champion anyway This content is protected
