What is the TRUE lineage of the heavyweight title

The lineage of the heavyweight title as writen in the average encyclopedia or boxing manual is generally acepted without much question.

On closer examination however it rests on some verry dubious title claims tournaments and changes of lineage.

So what is the true heavyweight lineage?

I am not asking you to predict what would happen if certain shafted contenders got a title shot or judge the validity of official decisions. For the purpouses of this thread we accept the oficial verdict of a fight whether we agree with it or not.

The pertinent questions as I see them are as follows-

1. Was John L Sullivan the first lineal heavyweight champion and if not who was?

Not everybody recognised Sullivans claim at the time.


2. Should James Corbetts claim to the title be recognised after his retirment?

The man retired causing Bob Fitzsimmons to fight Peter Maher for the vacant title and when he anounced his comeback the new lineage efectivley evapourated.


3. If not then should we recognise the winner of Fitzsimmons Maher as representing the new lineage.

If so then Tom Sharkey was also a lineal champion one of two to win the title on a low blow.


4. After James Jeffries retired, did the winner of Hart Root have any claim to the lineal title whatsoever since no sanctioning body authourised it as a title fight?

Virtualy nobody took this claim seriously at the time.


5. If not when was lineage re established?

Perhaps when Jack Johnson beat Tommy Burns to unify the Hart Root title claim with his own coloured title claim?


6. After Gene Tunney retired did the winner of the subsequent elimination tournament (MaxSchmeling) represent the new lineage and by what autaurity?


7. After Joe Louis retired did the winner of Charles Walcott I represent the new lineage and by what authaurity.


8. After the retirment of Muhamad Ali, when did Larry Holmes atain lineage and by what authaurity?

After he beat Norton?

After he beat Shavers?

After he beat Ali?

Perhaps never?


9. Following the retirment of Lennox Lewis did Klitschko Sanders forge the new lineage?

 

I'll go from point 5 janitor-

Johnson become lineal champ here beating Burns, the title would be vacated with the retirement of Tunney - Point 6.

At this point i do agree with the general consenus that Schmeling became lineal champ by winning the tournamnet for the title.

Point 7- I then agree again that Charles would be lineal champ after beating the top ranked Walcott, if not then he would be in winning the rematch, any doubts as to who the lineal champ was would be cleared up in the Walcott-Charles 4 fight series. Marciano's retirement would bring the next vacancy of the hw title, when Patterson became champ. Frazier would eventually become champ, then we are at point 8.

Imo, Holmes became champ when eating Norton.

The only curiosity i have in the lineage of th hw title is (and this is a curiosity of mine, as my memory doesnt serve me well) after beating Michael Moorer, did Foreman retire shortly (after the Schulz fight), if he did, then technicaly the next champ would be Holyfield, as he would clear up the top contenders before losing to Lennox. If Foreman was merely stripped of his alpha-straps but didnt actually retire, then Briggs was champ and the title would eventually end up with Lennox anyway. Please answer this for me if you can.

Then at point 9, i consider Vitali to be hw champ after beating Sanders

 

After Corbett retired Fitzsimmons Maher was billed as being for the vacant title.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Upon his retirment Jim Corbett named Peter Maher as his sucessor.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Thanks a lot janitor, ive learned some good things here. Really appreciated.

 

Could you shed any light on the Foreman query i have by the way?

 

6. All the top dogs squared off Schmelling was the winner, clear lineage

7. Yes and No, wasnt Savold part champ until Louis beat him and Charles became Lineage due to his backdated win over Louis?

8. Well definately after he beat Ali, Holmes definately couldnt be linear with Ali still fighting in '78

9. NO, most rankings had Ruiz and Byrd rightfully above Sanders. Therefore if Vitali was 1 and Sanders 4 no lineage could be established. Plus Byrd has the win over Vitali. Wlad has the better claim for lineage at the moment, he beat a past top3 fighter in Byrd and a current top3 in Sam Peter, and has 2 belts

 

Thanx for the Education Ben

 

Lineage is not really important. It's just fun to follow.

What if of importance is the quality of a fighter's opposition. If a fighter in any particular weight class is facing, and defeating, a better class of opposition than any other fighter in said class; that fighter deserves to be champion. Being champion is about proving yourself to be the best.

If Muhammad Ali had never faced Larry Holmes, and went on to lose to Berbick; I would not consider Berbick to be the real champion. Holmes would still have been champ in my opinion.

Besides, lineages are forever broken and starting over when fighters retire as champion. I say you don't have to wait for some people to retire. Some champions should sometimes get fired.

 

In an organized sense, Sullivan is commonly recognized as boxing's first heavyweight champion. Certain diehard historians however, credit James Figg as being the actual first, but Figg fought during a time, when boxing was more or less raw fighting with no real rules or resemblence to the game as we know it.

I think there needs to be some limitations on a champion's claim to a lineal title. Simply retiring, does not permanantely preserve a man's right to be called the best in the world. When Rocky Marciano retired, his title was left for the next two contenders to battle over it. If we were to say that Rocky was the lineal champion, who was irreplacable, then by that logic, boxing has been without a true chamion for over 50 years. I can't go along with such a claim, neither in Rocky's case nor Corbett's.

Without knowledge of Corbett's return, then this was the only righful thing to do.
.

Again, leaving a proffession of any kind does not preserve an individual's claim to any sort of thrown. If the president of a major company resigns, his position is given to the next chosen candidate.

When a title is won in vacant fashion, rarely do spectators accept it very well.

 

There are those who say it should start from when Blacks had the opportunity to challenge for the title ,seems only fair really ,but we cant wipe out what history occured before it.Jeffries would certainly have won the title at some point ,Corbett and Fitz too ,Sullivan would probably have held it ,until he dissipated his body enough for Peter Jackson to take it from him,Burns and Hart are less certain.I tend to go with what we have.Sullivan Corbett and so on,you cannot rewrite whats happened

 

Yikes. What a way for Norton to lose his title.

 

Corbett went 61 gloved (presumably 3-minute) competitive rounds with Jackson at Jackson's prime, so Corbett was obviously a really good fighter regardless of the circumstances of the time.

 

I think Holmes laid claim to the title based on his victory over Weaver, before Weaver won the WBA title. Both reigned for a fairly long time. Anyway in the Nineties, Tyson cleared up any confusion. Now, it would have to be Klitschko based on, he is the best Champion currently. But a match with Peter would really clear up any confusion. If that's possible.

 

Haha! The classic forum isnt forgiving of anything is it?!

My bad!