When and with who did Larry Holmes become lineal champion?

Agreed. I can think of examples in the past when the passing of lineage held some importance. But mostly and particularly in modern boxing, its a formality. Muhammad Ali was retired and viewed by most as washed up. Meanwhile Holmes had defeated Norton, Shavers and a few other men to crown himself as best in the world. The rule of lineage has its contradictions as well. Floyd Patterson and Mike Tyson both became the youngest heavyweight champions by winning their belts from opponents who weren't considered lineal champions.. It wasn't until Tyson beat Spinks that he was granted the same lineage as Patterson received for beating Moore however.. Why was that? Because the champion prior to Patterson retired while the one who existed in Tyson's era chose to linger around waiting for the right pay day while being stripped of his belt? In my mind, Tyson was as much of a champion as anyone the night he beat Tony Tucker to unify the title and added the belt previously held by Spinks to his collection, making him the youngest heavyweight champion ever.. There are some who have argued hammer and tong that this wasn't the case, and that Tyson hadn't earned lineage until Spinks hit the canvas. But when a champion relinquishes the title for ANY reason, weather it be due to retirement, stripping for refusal to fight a mandatory or death, the sport moves on... Otherwise, the heavyweight title would have died with Gene Tunney.

 

I think he created a new line when he beat Shavers for the second time in 1979.
Shavers had just KO'd Norton in 1.
I regard Holmes and Shavers as #1 and #2 going in to that bout.

 

Ring had it 1v3

 

Like when Ali got stripped for facing Liston in the rematch?

 

Muhammad Ali, four-time World (Boxing Association) Heavyweight Champion!

 

Larry Holmes became the lineal champion when he stopped Muhammad Ali.

The Lineal title passes when someone beats the Lineal champ.

Ali retired a half a dozen times after he beat Foreman. He retired in 1976. He retired in 1977. He retired in 1979. The "retirement" after the Spinks rematch was just another one.

Holmes had no claim to the title before his win over Ali.

Leon Spinks beat Muhammad Ali. The WBC stripped their title from Leon and just gave it to Norton. That decision was considered a complete joke at the time. Holmes then beat Norton.

The WBC belt meant next to nothing.

Ali regained the World Title from Spinks. Everyone recognized Ali as champ. Ali retired (yet again) and Bob Arum paid him $300,000 to hold an elimination tournament to crown Ali's successor. The last lineal champ before Ali (Spinks) was in that tournament. John Tate won it.

Ali then decided to fight again in 1980 and meet John Tate.

Had John Tate won his fight with Ali, Tate would've been the "World" champ and all the WBA champs after him would've been the Lineal champs ... and Larry Holmes - who never unified - would've been Ernie Terrell with a really long reign.

Holmes was fighting a bunch of guys Ali had already beaten (Norton, Shavers, Evangelista) and some no hopers in Ocasio, Weaver, Zanon, Ledoux, Leroy Jones. He wasn't seen as anything more than a paper champ. He wasn't even that well known.

But Tate lost to Weaver (in Tate's 'tuneup' bout before the Ali match), and Ali felt he could make more fighting his former sparring partner Holmes than Weaver (who everyone agreed was bad). So he fought Holmes instead.

Holmes won. Holmes became the "world" champ.

There was no need for a #1 vs. a #2 for a "vacant" belt. The "world" champ Ali got stopped by Holmes, and Holmes became the world champ.

Just like Ezzard Charles became the "world" champ when he beat Joe Louis.

Everyone recognized Holmes after that. Before the win over Ali, Holmes' defenses were ridiculed endlessly for the poor choices he made. Even Weaver was considered a joke when Holmes fought him.

RING being one of the "experts" who considered the Weaver defense a joke.

RING is just "a magazine." They have no say in anything. They wield no authority in boxing. Their ratings aren't better than any other magazine (or website today) that posts ratings.

I don't know how the f*ck they decided that Holmes was the "undisputed" champ after Weaver beat Tate. Who cares if Holmes beat Weaver the year before. You don't retroactively win titles a year later.

At the time, they certainly didn't consider Holmes' win over Weaver anything but an very poor performance by Holmes over a journeyman who had no business in a title fight.

But everyone recognized Holmes' win over Ali as the passing of the "world" championship.

 

Nat Fleischer had been dead for years before Holmes fought Norton. And RING was considered a complete joke the year before Holmes faced Norton in 1978.

In 1977, RING magazine was called before Congress for fixing its ratings for the U.S. Boxing Championships. People were RUNNING from RING magazine in 1978. Nat Loubet (who succeeded Fleischer) was accused of taking bribes for ratings. Loubet ended up selling RING to Bert Suger in 1979, and Sugar was accused of just stealing articles from newspapers and publishing them as stories in RING, and writers accused Sugar of never paying them for stories they did write for the magazine. The Loubet and Sugar eras were filled with scandals.

That's actually when (1977, 1978, 1979 ...) the networks started to completely ignore RING and they just followed the WBC and WBA ratings.

I know. I was a fan back then.

Then the RING tried to go back to just rating the 8 original divisions, which made their ratings look even more bizarre because they were wedging contenders and champs from one division into another to suit their new criteria for just recognizing the original eight.

They refused to recognize the cruiserweight division while Holyfield was the champ there, which made them look stupid.

They were completely out of touch for the better part of 20 years.

There were considered a complete joke for the most part until HBO tried to bring them back to life by paying attention to them when HBO wanted guys like Roy Jones to dump their WBC/WBA/WBO and IBF belts so HBO wouldn't have to televise mandatory defenses.

HBO just wanted to make their own fights with their own fighters they had under contract. And the sanctioning bodies were getting in their way. So they started hyping the RING ratings again. HBO just did it to suit their own purposes, not because the RING ratings were above reproach or better than anyone else's.

 

He was unquestionably the best from Norton to Witherspoon, a fight that he won but was very close and showed he lost a step .. in mid-83 post Spoon he got dicey, tired of being jerked around and no doubt playing risk/reward .. still in 84 he beat Bonecrusher who flattened Bruno and would later flatten Weaver and Witherspoon and Bey fresh off of beating up Greg Page and a young, talented huge Carl Williams .. during his reign he beat five different alphabet champions ...

 

So where did it go after Tunney not to mention Marciano and Lewis?

 

I think some of these guys are of the philosophy that when a champion "retires" the lineage passes to the next best fighter. But when he chooses to " hang around " he remains the champ Even if he's stripped... Not an argument I agree with.. Defending a title is just as important if not more so than winning it.. When a fighter is stripped as in Spinks case or exiled as in Ali's case, the sport moves on.. In my mind, when Jim Jeffries entered the ring against Jack Johnson, it was Johnson who was the champion.. When Ali fought Frazier, it was Frazier who was the champion.. Same with Tyson going in with Spinks... Patterson beating Archie Moore to win the title in vacant fashion after Marciano retired shouldn't give him anymore claim to lineage than the above men in my book..

 

In my mind, when a champion retires, bis championship claim is retired as well.

Holmes beat a former champ in Ali, not a reigning champ.

If Lewis came back today would beating him make someone champion?

Let's take a smaller gap, if Floyd came back would beating him make someone champion?

I don't think Ali in 79 was "just another retirement" because he vacated his claims as well.

I didn't live through the era though, just like debating it.

 

Yeah but i was just going by the criteria given.

I agree with you per your comments on this lineal stuff earleir.

 

On the strength of the Norton win, I'd rate Shavers #2.
Who did the Ring have as #2 ?

 

I would as well personally, but they had Tate there.

 

On the strength of wins over Kallie Knoetze and Duane Bobick (who Norton had already KO'd in 1) ?
Shavers was more deserving, yes. :good