View Full Version : We have lost the lineal title
punchy
11-15-2008, 01:47 AM
I don't believe the Lineal title exists anymore, lets face it whoever ring magazine rates as the champion for the respective weight is the real champion and it has been this way ever since Holmes defeated Al, and I am talking about all weight classes here.
Lineal means bullshit if you are not fighting the best in the ring.
PowerPuncher
11-15-2008, 05:00 AM
The RIng Magazine has stolen the Linear Champions and made its own champions, usually they are top of the division but not always outright defined best - Vitali getting the ring belt was premature.
My dinner with Conteh
11-15-2008, 05:13 AM
The lineal title has meant sweet fa to me since people regarded Spinks as champ in the months before the Tyson fight. I haven't taken it seriously since.
PowerPuncher
11-15-2008, 08:45 AM
The lineal title has meant sweet fa to me since people regarded Spinks as champ in the months before the Tyson fight. I haven't taken it seriously since.
The linear title has always had situations like that 1 though, where the best fighter hasnt beaten the champ yet
teeto
11-15-2008, 08:50 AM
The linear title has always had situations like that 1 though, where the best fighter hasnt beaten the champ yet
You're right.
ryan8331
11-15-2008, 08:51 AM
who is the linear champ at lightweight?
PowerPuncher
11-15-2008, 08:58 AM
who is the linear champ at lightweight?
Marquez, although Campbell beat the unified champ in Diaz
ryan8331
11-15-2008, 09:05 AM
Marquez, although Campbell beat the unified champ in Diaz
there was a time when casamayor,aging and inactive,was seen as the champ over an undefeated champion who had scored back to back unification wins?
thats why it doesnt hold much weight with me.
isnt erdei linear champ at lhw?
TommyV
11-15-2008, 09:16 AM
The lineal title means pratically nothing anymore.
Can you honestly say that Zsolt Erdei is the best 175?
My dinner with Conteh
11-15-2008, 11:39 AM
The linear title has always had situations like that 1 though, where the best fighter hasnt beaten the champ yet
But in this case the best fighter had all the titles too.
janitor
11-15-2008, 02:44 PM
The system for determining the lineal champion has never been satisfactory or consistent.
There is no lineal progresion from John L Sullivan to Lennox Lewis that does not employ inconsistent criteria for example.
This (taken from CBZ) is normaly taken as the heavyweight lineage:
John L. Sullivan ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
James J. Corbett ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Bob Fitzsimmons ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
James J. Jeffries ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Marvin Hart ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Tommy Burns ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Jack Johnson
Jess Willard ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Jack Dempsey ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Gene Tunney ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Max Schmeling ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Jack Sharkey ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Primo Carnera ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Max Baer ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
James J. Braddock ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Joe Louis ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Ezzard Charles ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
"Jersey" Joe Walcott ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Rocky Marciano ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Floyd Patterson ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Ingemar Johansson ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Floyd Patterson ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Charles "Sonny" Liston ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Cassius Clay ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Joe Frazier ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
George Foreman ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Muhammad Ali ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Leon Spinks ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Muhammad Ali ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Larry Holmes ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Michael Spinks ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Mike Tyson ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
James "Buster" Douglas ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Evander Holyfield ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Riddick Bowe ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Evander Holyfield ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Michael Moorer ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
George Foreman ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Shannon Briggs ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Lennox Lewis ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Hasim Rahman ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Lennox Lewis ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Vacant?
Red = contentious points
If this is the lineage then there are about half a dozen inconsistencies in terms of how the tittle changes hands.
punchy
11-15-2008, 04:39 PM
Janitor we can't have no lineal champ, to my way of thinking Vitali being the last boxer to fight Lewis should be the champ when the champ retires.
janitor
11-15-2008, 05:03 PM
Janitor we can't have no lineal champ, to my way of thinking Vitali being the last boxer to fight Lewis should be the champ when the champ retires.
The irony is that Vitally's claim to the lineal title is somewhat stronger than Marvin Hart's, yet nobody questions Harts lineal title claim and everybody questions VK's.
There is no consistency.
The irony is that Vitally's claim to the lineal title is somewhat stronger than Marvin Hart's, yet nobody questions Harts lineal title claim and everybody questions VK's.
There is no consistency.
The linear title can only be passed on in the ring
Hart was not a linear champion the moment that Jefferies came back the linear title passed from him to Johnson. True lineage stopped when Tunney retired with the belt. A new lineage was formed due to only one belt existing this too was stopped upon Marcianos retirement. Once again a new lineage was created and ran through until Lewis retired with his title still intact. Until someone becomes unified and therefore undisputed by the major 3 or 4 sanctioning bodies (WBA,WBC, IBF possibly WBO) lineage is unable to be created again.
janitor
11-16-2008, 03:09 PM
The linear title can only be passed on in the ring
Hart was not a linear champion the moment that Jefferies came back the linear title passed from him to Johnson. True lineage stopped when Tunney retired with the belt. A new lineage was formed due to only one belt existing this too was stopped upon Marcianos retirement. Once again a new lineage was created and ran through until Lewis retired with his title still intact. Until someone becomes unified and therefore undisputed by the major 3 or 4 sanctioning bodies (WBA,WBC, IBF possibly WBO) lineage is unable to be created again.
Im not saying that what you propose is wrong but it would require extensive revision of the lineage as it stands.
Hart and Burns would be out.
If Schmeling Sharkey I established a new lineage then you have the complication of another version of the title existing at this point.
The3re are probably mopre issues.
PowerPuncher
11-16-2008, 03:14 PM
The linear title can only be passed on in the ring
Hart was not a linear champion the moment that Jefferies came back the linear title passed from him to Johnson. True lineage stopped when Tunney retired with the belt. A new lineage was formed due to only one belt existing this too was stopped upon Marcianos retirement. Once again a new lineage was created and ran through until Lewis retired with his title still intact. Until someone becomes unified and therefore undisputed by the major 3 or 4 sanctioning bodies (WBA,WBC, IBF possibly WBO) lineage is unable to be created again.
Top 2 fighting = Linearage. Wlad beating Peter and Byrd arguably makes him linear, depending when you had Ruiz/Valuev/Chagaev at the time
Mendoza
11-16-2008, 03:15 PM
The RIng Magazine has stolen the Linear Champions and made its own champions, usually they are top of the division but not always outright defined best - Vitali getting the ring belt was premature.
In the history of boxing, there have been times when there was no lineal champion because he retired or became inactive. In such a case the two fighting for the title the lineal champion last held was the new lineal champion. This is a reason why Vitali was the ring magazine champion. The other reason was he was rated #1 by Ring Magazine, and all the other 3rd party ratings such as fightnews.com, Espn.com, and Box rec.
Top 2 fighting = Linearage. Wlad beating Peter and Byrd arguably makes him linear, depending when you had Ruiz/Valuev/Chagaev at the time
Top 2 decided by who??? It is too speculative that is why I feel only a fully unified title justifies annointment as linear champ in the current situation. Wlad didnt beat the linear champ to win his title so has no more claim than Vitali or Chagaev.
Im not saying that what you propose is wrong but it would require extensive revision of the lineage as it stands.
Hart and Burns would be out.
If Schmeling Sharkey I established a new lineage then you have the complication of another version of the title existing at this point.
The3re are probably mopre issues.
I agree with you, I dont consider Hart or Burns anything other than titlists, Johnson became linear by beating Jefferies, Holmes by beating a comebacking Ali, Tyson by beating Spinks, Lewis by beating Briggs. They were already titlists and probably the best in the division prior to these victories.
The pride of the linear title is that it can only be won by beating the man who beat the man....
DamonD
11-16-2008, 03:31 PM
I have no problem with Vitali being the #1 at the time
My bigger issue is with Sanders being the #3.
First off, Ring stretched things a little because originally it was meant to be that only the #1 and #2 guys fighting would lead to their C ranking, the recognised linear champ. They changed that to say the #1 guy beating either #2 or #3 would do.
Sanders shocks Wlad, along with the rest of us. From being totally unranked, Ring suddenly shoot him right up to #3. Well, I don't know what Wlad's Ring rating was at the time but you had to figure it was right up there, probably just behind Lewis. It's not something they've always repeated with similar upgrades, but okay, I guess it was just that unexpected and Sanders get rewarded.
Vitali has the scrap with Lewis then pummels the blubbery Kirk to establish his credentials. Sanders, on the other hand, does absolutely nothing for 13 months except ditch the WBO belt and get some more golf in. By the time he gets round to fighting Vitali, rusty and with unneeded extra weight, not only arguably should his ranking be either lower or not registered due to doing nothing for over a year, but during that time Wladimir has lost again, to Lamon Brewster this time...diluting the mercurial value of Sanders win over him.
Like I say, Vitali is a bona fide #1. Everyone is expecting him to now be dominant for years. Confident this will happen, Ring make him the Champion. Sanders, on the other hand, then totally drops out of their rankings altogether. Whoa! Going 8 rounds with the #1 guy apparently isn't good enough...even when Peter suffered the same against Vitali he fell but still clocked in a #7 ranking. Sanders just disappears. Jolly good thing he held onto that #3 ranking just long enough!
Meantime, debatable or not, Chris Byrd is floating around as the #2. That's the guy that Vitali should've beaten up to become the big champ. Byrd is unlikely to want it, Vitali is likely to win it, but regardless that should've been the #1 vs #2 fight. You push for that one.
Instead, Sanders becomes a handy pawn. And The Ring's seemingly safe bet backfires as Vitali's injuries pile up and he's forced to ditch the belt with only one, voluntary, defence against Danny Williams.
I think The Ring jumped the gun, plain and simple.
Not a knock on Vitali whatsoever, he was the best heavyweight around in my eyes, but you have to do it in the ring and not just on "oh, we know he'd beat him". Considering the struggles both Holyfield and Lewis had to get that top ranking, it really felt premature.
janitor
11-16-2008, 03:45 PM
I agree with you, I dont consider Hart or Burns anything other than titlists, Johnson became linear by beating Jefferies, Holmes by beating a comebacking Ali, Tyson by beating Spinks, Lewis by beating Briggs. They were already titlists and probably the best in the division prior to these victories.
The pride of the linear title is that it can only be won by beating the man who beat the man....
The system that you are proposing is at least consistent unlike the acepted lineage.
In order to produce a consistent lineage we would have to either (A) acept the system that you are advocating where the title onbly changes hands in the ring or (B) say that when a champion retires he waves all right to the title.
(A) means that Hart and Burns get struck off the list of lineal champions.
(B) means that Tom Sharkey is added to the list of lineal champions.
janitor
11-16-2008, 03:46 PM
I have no problem with Vitali being the #1 at the time
My bigger issue is with Sanders being the #3.
First off, Ring stretched things a little because originally it was meant to be that only the #1 and #2 guys fighting would lead to their C ranking, the recognised linear champ. They changed that to say the #1 guy beating either #2 or #3 would do.
Sanders shocks Wlad, along with the rest of us. From being totally unranked, Ring suddenly shoot him right up to #3. Well, I don't know what Wlad's Ring rating was at the time but you had to figure it was right up there, probably just behind Lewis. It's not something they've always repeated with similar upgrades, but okay, I guess it was just that unexpected and Sanders get rewarded.
Vitali has the scrap with Lewis then pummels the blubbery Kirk to establish his credentials. Sanders, on the other hand, does absolutely nothing for 13 months except ditch the WBO belt and get some more golf in. By the time he gets round to fighting Vitali, rusty and with unneeded extra weight, not only arguably should his ranking be either lower or not registered due to doing nothing for over a year, but during that time Wladimir has lost again, to Lamon Brewster this time...diluting the mercurial value of Sanders win over him.
Like I say, Vitali is a bona fide #1. Everyone is expecting him to now be dominant for years. Confident this will happen, Ring make him the Champion. Sanders, on the other hand, then totally drops out of their rankings altogether. Whoa! Going 8 rounds with the #1 guy apparently isn't good enough...even when Peter suffered the same against Vitali he fell but still clocked in a #7 ranking. Sanders just disappears. Jolly good thing he held onto that #3 ranking just long enough!
Meantime, debatable or not, Chris Byrd is floating around as the #2. That's the guy that Vitali should've beaten up to become the big champ. Byrd is unlikely to want it, Vitali is likely to win it, but regardless that should've been the #1 vs #2 fight. You push for that one.
Instead, Sanders becomes a handy pawn. And The Ring's seemingly safe bet backfires as Vitali's injuries pile up and he's forced to ditch the belt with only one, voluntary, defence against Danny Williams.
I think The Ring jumped the gun, plain and simple.
Not a knock on Vitali whatsoever, he was the best heavyweight around in my eyes, but you have to do it in the ring and not just on "oh, we know he'd beat him". Considering the struggles both Holyfield and Lewis had to get that top ranking, it really felt premature.
While your criticisms are fair I would point out that the circumstances under which Marvin Hart gained the lineal title were far worse.
The system that you are proposing is at least consistent unlike the acepted lineage.
In order to produce a consistent lineage we would have to either (A) acept the system that you are advocating where the title onbly changes hands in the ring or (B) say that when a champion retires he waves all right to the title.
(A) means that Hart and Burns get struck off the list of lineal champions.
(B) means that Tom Sharkey is added to the list of lineal champions.
Im sure others see it differently because it is kind of revisionist but yes this is how I see it
This is my lineage of the Heavyweight title
Corbett
Fitzsimmons
Jeffries
Johnson
Willard
Dempsey
Tunney
Line Broken
New line created by Schmelling beating Sharkey
Schmelling
Sharkey
Carnera
Baer
Braddock
Louis
Charles
Walcott
Marciano
Line Broken
New line created by Patterson beating Moore
Patterson
Liston
Ali
Frazier
Foreman
Ali
L. Spinks
Ali
Holmes
M.Spinks
Tyson
Douglas
Holyfield
Bowe
Holyfield
Moorer
Foreman
Briggs
Lewis
Rahman
Lewis
Line Broken
janitor
11-16-2008, 04:18 PM
[quote=Jear]This is my lineage of the Heavyweight title
The alternative based on my option B would be this:
Mace
Line broken
New line created by Sullivan beating Ryan.
Sullivan
Corbett
Line broken
New line created by Fitzsimmons beating Maher
Fitzsimmons
Sharkey
Jeffries
Johnson
Willard
Dempsey
Tunney
Line Broken
New line created by Schmelling beating Sharkey
Schmelling
Sharkey
Carnera
Baer
Braddock
Louis
Line broken
New line created by Charles beating Walcott.
Charles
Walcott
Marciano
Line Broken
New line created by Patterson beating Moore
Patterson
Liston
Ali
Frazier
Foreman
Ali
L. Spinks
Ali
Line broken
New line created by Holmes beating Shavers
Holmes
M.Spinks
Tyson
Douglas
Holyfield
Bowe
Holyfield
Moorer
Foreman
Briggs
Lewis
Rahman
Lewis
Line Broken
New line created by Klitschko beating Sanders?
Line broken
PowerPuncher
11-16-2008, 04:24 PM
In the history of boxing, there have been times when there was no lineal champion because he retired or became inactive. In such a case the two fighting for the title the lineal champion last held was the new lineal champion. This is a reason why Vitali was the ring magazine champion. The other reason was he was rated #1 by Ring Magazine, and all the other 3rd party ratings such as fightnews.com, Espn.com, and Box rec.
I dont think Sanders did near enough to be top3 let alone top2. Sanders lost to Rahman who lost to Ruiz who lost to Jones. Ruiz beat far more ranked opponents than Sanders, as did Byrd, as did Rahman. He also only faced 2 ranked opponents in Wlad and Rahman, if I'm not wrong
I think Wlad has a better claim for linearity after beating Peter and Byrd back to back
janitor
11-16-2008, 04:32 PM
I dont think Sanders did near enough to be top3 let alone top2. Sanders lost to Rahman who lost to Ruiz who lost to Jones. Ruiz beat far more ranked opponents than Sanders, as did Byrd, as did Rahman. He also only faced 2 ranked opponents in Wlad and Rahman, if I'm not wrong
I think Wlad has a better claim for linearity after beating Peter and Byrd back to back
Wlads problem is that he beat the right people at the wrong time (when they were rankled outside the top 3).
Vitally beat the wrong person at the right time (while he was ranked top 3)
TBooze
11-16-2008, 04:36 PM
The last true (as in the dictionary definition of Lineage) Lineage champion was Bruno Girard and he gave up his 168lbs crown in 2001.
PowerPuncher
11-16-2008, 04:37 PM
Wlads problem is that he beat the right people at the wrong time (when they were rankled outside the top 3).
Vitally beat the wrong person at the right time (while he was ranked top 3)
The Ring Magazine isn't the be all and end all and its rankings aren't perfect, 1 win against Wladdy shouldn't have bumped Sanders above Ruiz and Byrd
janitor
11-16-2008, 04:39 PM
The Ring Magazine isn't the be all and end all and its rankings aren't perfect, 1 win against Wladdy shouldn't have bumped Sanders above Ruiz and Byrd
Should n'thas verry little to do with it.
The fact is they did.
Also "fair" has nothing to do with it either.
It is just a point of technicality.
[quote]
The alternative based on my option B would be this:
New line created by Klitschko beating Sanders?
Line broken
Yes definately has merit, I just struggle with VK on a one win streak and Sanders with a win over WK, Tisdale and Sprott being considered the best heavyweights around when Byrd was fighting and beating the likes of Holy, Mcline, Golota, Tua and Oquendo over a 3 or four year period without a loss or Ruiz who fought Golota, Oquendo, Rahman and Holy over the same period, sure he lost to Jones, but Rahman had knocked out Sanders and VK had been stopped by Lewis
janitor
11-16-2008, 04:51 PM
[quote=janitor]
Yes definately has merit, I just struggle with VK on a one win streak and Sanders with a win over WK, Tisdale and Sprott being considered the best heavyweights around when Byrd was fighting and beating the likes of Holy, Mcline, Golota, Tua and Oquendo over a 3 or four year period without a loss or Ruiz who fought Golota, Oquendo, Rahman and Holy over the same period, sure he lost to Jones, but Rahman had knocked out Sanders and VK had been stopped by Lewis
I am not setting myself up as the defender of Ring Magazines policies.
I am just saying that Marvin Hart probably had a more shaky claim to the lineal title than VK.
PowerPuncher
11-16-2008, 04:55 PM
Should n'thas verry little to do with it.
The fact is they did.
Also "fair" has nothing to do with it either.
It is just a point of technicality.
Is the Ring Magazine the only boxing body that counts that defines the Linear Title? I say no, especially now its owned by a promoter
janitor
11-16-2008, 04:58 PM
Is the Ring Magazine the only boxing body that counts that defines the Linear Title? I say no
It is the only one that claims to unless you want to set up your own organisation.
[quote=Jear]
I am not setting myself up as the defender of Ring Magazines policies.
I am just saying that Marvin Hart probably had a more shaky claim to the lineal title than VK.
Haha yeah Jefferies decides who should fight for his title and then referees it very shaky.
janitor
11-16-2008, 05:21 PM
[quote=janitor]
Haha yeah Jefferies decides who should fight for his title and then referees it very shaky.
A better analogy would be:
Lennox Lewis retires.
Don King anounces that he will arrange a fight between two heavyweights from his stable (who are not the best or brightest) to decide the new champion.
Lets say Ruiz and Ramhan.
King pays Lewis to oversee the fight to lend it legitimacy.
That is basicaly what happened when Hart won the lineal title.
PowerPuncher
11-16-2008, 05:41 PM
[quote=Jear]
A better analogy would be:
Lennox Lewis retires.
Don King anounces that he will arrange a fight between two heavyweights from his stable (who are not the best or brightest) to decide the new champion.
Lets say Ruiz and Ramhan.
King pays Lewis to oversee the fight to lend it legitimacy.
That is basicaly what happened when Hart won the lineal title.
Yes but the Ruiz-Rahman fight has as much legitimacy as Vitali-Sanders
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.