Who are the top ten heavyweights who never received a lineal title shot?

Vitali was still ranked as WBC Champion when the Povetkin fight went down. Vitali retired with it. Pulev would make Wlad lineal champ.

 

How many number 1-2 guys did Johnson beat when Jeffries retired? Jack still wasn't regarded as the champion. Jeffires had to come out of retirement for it to be legitimized. Wlad needed to beat Vitali , or beat the guy who beat Vitali, or fight for Vitalis vacated belt.

Being lineal is beating the main man before you. This thing was created when there was just one belt in rotation.

With all the belts these days , lineage isn't here nor there.

 

What was wrong with vitali being linear champ after he beat Sanders?

It is the same kind of fight as Moore vs Patterson. Moore had been the last man to face the retired champion marciano in much the same way as vitali was the last man to face Lewis. so a link was kept there with the last champion. The last man to fight "the man". Or the man who "retired the man" versus the universally recognised next best is an okay rule isn't it? It was good enough for Ring Magazine.

Presumably when vitali retired the first time his brother became universally recognised and once vitali retired for real and his brother beat Povetkin he became the linear guy?

 

That's how it panned out but that would be disrespecting Tommy Burns who made the title a more truly international crown. Perhaps Tommys crown could be regarded a "white championship" and his fight with Johnson a true unification?

Johnson beating Jeffries joined a gap in the chain of sorts, but for me Johnson v Burns was perhaps where the line of the real title started.

Was Ali v Holmes the crowning of Larry as a the linear champion?

 

How does it disrespect Burns? He held the title by avoiding Johnson.

Yeah. Ali won it from Spinks

 

Marvin Hart who burns beat did not avoid Johnson.

 

What is it that you think i'm changing,TB ?

Agreed. complete consensus is elusive on nearly any subject, not just boxing.

You would get near universal agreement that Messi and Ronaldo are both top five footballers, but there might be some who would disagree. After all, there is no universally accepted method of ranking the players.

And while, as you say, "There is no where in boxing to get a consensus..." the overwhelming majority of those who ponder the issue have concluded that at this point, Wlad is "the man" and is therefore the beginning of a new line, establishing a new linearity. This resulted from his victory in the bout between the #1 and #2 fighters in the world.

(It's true that Vitali was still around, but he was widely expected to retire shortly (and did !) and he had been inactive for over a year. The year is arbitrary, but it's reasonable to agree on some length of time during which a fighter needs to fight to maintain ranked status. Otherwise he could silently and inactively maintain it indefinitely.)

True. And I do.

It took considerable time and deliberation on the part of various bodies to arrive at the present 'consensus.'

It's just that the 'quirks' you mention seem to be unique and exclusive to you.
And therefore, without any disrespect to your good self, failure to incorporate the said quirks into the issue is hardly a death-blow to the near-complete consensus that Wlad is the current Champion.

One can indeed play Devil's Advocate and lay out alternatives, but that's where consensus (or near-consensus) comes in. The case is put, examined, and either found to be persuasive and adopted, or found wanting and rejected.

No. I believe you misunderstood what I was saying here.

(And bear in mind that the Royal Blood-line analogy does not perfectly parallel the linearity question in boxing. If a bomb at a garden party sent Liz and Charles and the Duke and Willie and his little son, and most of the others with a claim to the throne, all to the sweet hereafter, there are fairly well established rules of succession that could be used to determine a new monarch. Such rules are nowhere near as clear on Boxing Lineage.)

What I meant was the strict interpretation of the term "Linear" might be not always be applicable. When Liz 1 died without issue, technically, her line died with her. They had to back up the 'line ' a bit to come up with James (1 of England, 6 of Scotland) who did not carry forth Liz 1's line, but did perpetuate the line of her ancestors. Liz 1 was a dead end. No subsequent monarch can trace their lineage back to Liz 1.

(Even less 'linear' was what emerged from the Wars of the Roses)

It is obvious that if by linear, we mean the man-who-beat-the-man, then Patterson was never linear as he never beat Rocky. But as the consensus held that the winner of Patterson and Moore would be "the man", the champion, then most agree that Floyd started a new line and that Liston became the linear champion when he stopped him.

My point was strictly technical and, I believe, obvious. There wasn't the same 'hand-off" between Marciano and Patterson as there had been between Walcott and Marciano nor between Patterson and Liston.

Your use of the word 'new' is implicit recognition of what I was saying earlier.
ANd your use of the word 'consensus' is apt in that consensus is used to restart the line.

 

Hart should have fought Johnson for the vacant title instead of Root imo.


I wouldnt normally fight a n****r,But I'll fight this one just to put him in his place.

Marvin Hart, prior to the Johnson fight.

 

But Johnson was black, so that was not going to happen.

 

good call.:good

The age of gentlemen!