Undisputed Heavyweight Champion

Kimura77

Orange Belt
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
368
Reaction score
0
Iv heard alot of talk recently(could it be because they just fought recently?)of the Klitchko's vs this and that of the all-time greats,and i was wondering...

Does anyone here understand what it means to be "Undisputed Champ"?

Its also known as the "Lineal Championship".........If you do than you probably already know where im going with this..........

If you dont know(its probably because we dont have one,but ill get to that later)then its ok ill explain:

In the "Modern Era" it goes.....

John L. Sullivan
^
James J. Corbett
^
Bob Fitzsimmons
^
James J. Jeffries
^
Marvin Hart
^
Tommy Burns
^
Jack Johnson
^
Jess Willard
^
Jack Dempsey
^
Gene Tunney
^
Max Schmeling
^
Jack Sharkey
^
Primo Carnera
^
Max Baer
^
James J. Braddock
^
Joe Louis
^
Ezzard Charles
^
Jersey Joe Walcott
^
Rocky Marciano
^
Floyd Patterson
^
Ingemar Johansson
^
Floyd Patterson
^
Sonny Liston
^
Muhammad Ali
^
Joe Frazier
^
George Foreman
^
Muhammad Ali
^
Leon Spinks
^
Muhammad Ali
^
Larry Holmes
^
Michael Spinks
^
Mike Tyson
^
James "Buster" Douglas
^
Evander Holyfield
^
Riddick Bowe
^
Evander Holyfield
^
Michael Moorer
^
George Foreman
^
Shannon Briggs
^
Lennox Lewis
^
Hasim Rahman
^
Lennox Lewis

Now that gets me to my point,we dont have one right now because the #1 and #2 fighters in the world wont fight each other for the reason that they are brothers...
I understand thats an odd occurrence but we cant penalize our sport by crowning one the "Undisputed Champion" when the difference in ability between the two is only marginal and the gap of talent in the Heavyweight division is so vast...
That being said if one was to retire and leave the sport than the remaining Klitschko could be recognized as the "Lineal Champion" but until then all we got is two giants beating up on a bunch of scraps,nothing that either of them are doing right now is going to get them into the Hall of Fame...

As for imaginary matchups...you could put either of the Klitschko's in the ring with any All-Time great that you want and have any outcome that you can think of.......

But Godzilla still smashes them all......
 
Last edited:
Now that gets me to my point,we dont have one right now because the #1 and #2 fighters in the world wont fight each other for the reason that they are brothers...
I understand thats an odd occurrence but we cant penalize our sport by crowning one the "Undisputed Champion" when the difference in ability between the two is only marginal and the gap of talent in the Heavyweight division is so vast...
That being said if one was to retire and leave the sport than the remaining Klitschko could be recognized as the "Linear Champion" but until then all we got is two giants beating up on a bunch of scraps,nothing that either of them are doing right now is going to get them into the Hall of Fame...


I agree with some of what you are saying but I still think both will get into the hall.

Here is another take on the Lineal Title.

Exposing The Lineal Title Myth
By John Vena

One conventional belief I share with the boxing community is the dismemberment of the sanctioning organizations known as the Alphabet Soup. To a certain degree, however, one of its belt holders can sometimes deserve the distinction of the actual Champion in the eyes of many. For this reason, I have always shuddered at the mention of the term "linear title holder". What is the difference?

At present, Lennox Lewis deserves to be credited as the best heavyweight in the world. However, it certainly has nothing to do with the fact that he knocked out Shannon Briggs. Briggs, as you may recall, was the lottery winner who inherited the title by receiving an unpopular decision over a fighter (George Foreman) who no longer wanted the responsibility of being the Heavyweight Champion of the World. Lewis' claim has to do with the fact that he bested Evander Holyfield over 12 rounds.
Until this past March, Holyfield was widely regarded as the best heavyweight in the world for drubbing the man who everyone felt was the best. Please do not tell me that Tyson was not the best big man in the business at the time Holyfield whupped him.

Let's face it. The actual stripping of champions, like it or not, can be justified and unjustified. In the case of George Foreman, who won the lineal title by kayoing Michael Moorer; I believe it to be justified. I definitely do not agree with the fighters who were chosen to fight for his vacant titles, but Foreman was not doing service to boxing or his title. The fact that he chose to defend against the likes of Axel Schultz and Crawford Grimsley proves this. Unlike Lewis and Holyfield, who were mandated their belt fitters to face Zeljko Mavrovic and Vaughn Bean, Foreman CHOSE to fight lesser opponents. As a result of Foreman's poor taste in title challengers, the boxing media began to question the validity of Foreman's claim to the heavyweight crown and his rating rightfully plummeted.

The origin of lineage is derived from whom we feel to be the best. Ideally, it should be commendable to recognize one world champion per weight class. However, the meaning of the term "lineage" confuses me. What premise did we have to designate anyone the right to be called Champion? Why was the Negro Heavyweight Championship (back in the early 1900's) not considered as the most coveted title to be won. Realistically, its titlist was probably better than what white America regarded as World Champion? As we were to find out, Jack Johnson was far more superior to Tommy Burns when given the opportunity to fight him. Who knows how many recorded title defenses (he made 11 successful at the time) little Tommy could have racked up? In the next several years, Johnson wiped the floor with most of the same challengers Burns defeated?

In another instance, what if the "son of a bitch in the house" who stood up and accepted John L. Sullivan's challenge was Peter Jackson? Society has always formulated its opinion of which fighter is the best by naming the individuals to fight for the distinction of World Champion. America decided
long ago that Sullivan, the American Champion, would begin the lineage as the first Heavyweight Champion of the World under the Marquis of Queensbury rules; not his English rival, Charlie Mitchell who fought Sullivan to a draw.

What of Sullivan's lineage? If you trace it from when it began, it ended 22 years later when Jim Jeffries retired as undefeated Champion. Are we to believe that the reigns of Larry Holmes and Jack Johnson began when they defeated two former champions (Ali and Jeffries respectively) who had been retired a couple of years? When champions retire, there is no more lineage. The buck stops there. It does not mean that boxing is over. It means we need to find out who the best is. When Gene Tunney and Rocky Marciano retired as undefeated heavyweight champions, two men were chosen to fight for heavyweight supremacy.

The light-heavyweight division is also a perfect example of the invalidity of tracing lineage. When Michael Spinks relinquished his undisputed light-heavyweight throne, top-notch fighters were chosen to fight for his vacated alphabet titles. From that point we had to name a fighter who we perceived to be the best in the world. There is a consistent argument today as to whether or not Roy Jones Jr.
should be regarded as the premier 175-pounder on the planet. Why would he not be? He is also mentioned as the best fighter in the world pound-for-pound. Though Dariusz Michalczewski is unbeaten in his impressive career and decisioned the man widely regarded as the "Man" (Virgil Hill) at the time, he did so under convenient circumstances. With no disrespect towards Michalczewski, he defeated Hill two months after the fight had been originally scheduled but was postponed when Hill injured his foot. Hill's lack of recovery time was a clear indication as to why his usual stick-and-move style was absent in their unification match. In my opinion, the injury was the likely reason as to why Hill was easy prey for the "Tiger". One year later, a healthier version of Virgil faced an inactive Jones Jr. and was uncharacteristically knocked out with a shot to the rib cage! As George Foreman blurted at the time of the knockdown, "Unheard of!!"

Whether one believes that Michalczewski is the best light-heavyweight in the world or not, the reasoning should not be because he is the linear champion. He's not. His lineage is linked to no one. If anything, Jones or Michalczewski should hire a freelance referee to dig up the grave of Archie Moore, stand over him and have the ref count "10." After all, the "Ole Mongoose" was stripped for refusing to defend a title he never lost in the ring.

Though the sanctioning (no)bodies are a clan of imbeciles who do not deserve to be making money, should we dishonor the fighters and their achievements? Fighters aren't obligated to organize their own world championships. They are there to fight who is put in front of them. Boxing as it mirrors
society, is a sad reflection of our capitalistic world. As much as we would not like the sport to be confusing, the game must go on. When and if the political arena of boxing is cleaned up, it all barrels down to who can prove it in the squared circle to the public eye.
 
That being said if one was to retire and leave the sport than the remaining Klitschko could be recognized as the "Linear Champion" but until then all we got is two giants beating up on a bunch of scraps,nothing that either of them are doing right now is going to get them into the Hall of Fame...

Well, the remaining brother would still have to fight Haye for the WBA title, but I don't think anyone is worried about that (except for Haye).

Besides that, I don't think either of them not having the undisputed championship is going to keep them out of the hall. They'll most likely get in for dominating the hw divisions as long as they have, despite the relative low-quality of opposition.
 
Linear is not the same as undisputed. And BTW, Wlad is the linear HW champion.
 
an undisputed champion is one who's beaten all the other main title challengers, lineal titles mean nothing, but going a step furthur,

the last fighter I can remember who was actually the UNDISPUTED heavyweight boxing champion was..................................................................................................

tom cribb. yes tom cribb. after beating tom molineaux for the second time he was widely acclaimed the best pugilist in england (it was barely practiced in america) and he was not challenged for the rest of his career, until he officialy gave up the title close to 10 years later. now some might say jim jeffries but there was the whole jack johnson thing but the last fighter to have no one with the stones to face him was tom cribb.
 
Undisputed is a pipe dream nowdays the bodies are amazing at findings ways of crowning new champs, some of them even have multiple champs at each weights.the ring champ is the best solution
 
Linear is not the same as undisputed. And BTW, Wlad is the linear HW champion.

Here you go.......The Heavyweight Championship Path Of Lineage



and another one........The Heavyweight Champions of All-Time


Undisputed is a pipe dream nowdays the bodies are amazing at findings ways of crowning new champs, some of them even have multiple champs at each weights.the ring champ is the best solution

But they too have made their share of mistakes,during the early 90's they completely abandoned their policy leaving the fans to track the "True" heavyweight championship through all the mess and that left alot of the mainstream fans in confusion.Not to mention i like many feel it wasnt right to crown Wladimir Klitschko the champ for defeating Ruslan Chagaev when its obvious that Wladimir and Vitali are clearly the #1 and #2 fighters in their division......makes me wonder what,if any influence Oscar De La Hoya's Golden Boy Enterprises has on their rankings.....


an undisputed champion is one who's beaten all the other main title challengers, lineal titles mean nothing.....


That depends on what you considered to be "Undisputed",best example is when Tyson collected belts by defeating the likes of Berbick,Smith and Tucker....that to me doesnt make him the "Undisputed" champ.Not until he beat Michael Spinks who was considered the "man to beat"(aka Lineal champ because he beat Holmes 2x before him)

Heres another take......BBC SPORT | Boxing | He who would be king


And heres another article on The History Of The Linear Heavyweight Title, And An Accomplishment Achieved By Just Two Men
 
Last edited:
But they too have made their share of mistakes,during the early 90's they completely abandoned their policy leaving the fans to track the "True" heavyweight championship through all the mess and that left alot of the mainstream fans in confusion.Not to mention i like many feel it wasnt right to crown Wladimir Klitschko the champ for defeating Ruslan Chagaev when its obvious that Wladimir and Vitali are clearly the #1 and #2 fighters in their division......makes me wonder what,if any influence Oscar De La Hoya's Golden Boy Enterprises has on their rankings

i think they were going bankrupt in the 90s,but at least they brought them back.The wlad thing was a bit odd but at the time chagev had beaten better fighters then vitali in his comeback.chagev is wlad best win so far.why would Golden Boy use any of its influence if they had some to crown a rivial promoters main star (K2) as the hw champ.I don't think you could find any prove of golden boy having any influence on the belt.
 
Wladimir is the lineal champ right now. The Ring, IBF, WBO, and IBO champion with 9 defences of his IBF strap. I think if he retired right now....with winning gold in Atanta and the titles he has won as a pro, he would get into the Hall of Fame. But he is still going strong and eventually will get to 20 defences imo. When Vitali retires I'm sure he will get the WBC and if Haye grows some balls....Wlad will unify some time in the future.
 
i think they were going bankrupt in the 90s,but at least they brought them back.The wlad thing was a bit odd but at the time chagev had beaten better fighters then vitali in his comeback.chagev is wlad best win so far.why would Golden Boy use any of its influence if they had some to crown a rivial promoters main star (K2) as the hw champ.I don't think you could find any prove of golden boy having any influence on the belt.

I not screaming conspiracy,just questioning their motives seeing how its clear that #1 and #2 are vastly superior to the rest and that since they cant fight each other(And i wouldnt expect them to) than we cant clearly crown one as "Undisputed" champ
 
Cool, and? As I've said, linear is not the same as undisputed.

Heres a definition from Wiki...


In professional boxing, the lineal championship of a weight class is a notional world championship title. It is initially held at some moment in time by a boxer universally acclaimed as the best in the class


You can argue that you cant be an "Undisputed Champion" if the "Lineal Champion" is still present......ie the Tyson and Spinks scenario.

In the case of the Klitschko's,Wladimir cant be recognized as the "Undisputed Heavyweight Champion" of the world because his brother is the obvious #1 contender to that crown(Vitali is the last "Lineal" champ when he beat Sanders who KOed his brother)....

Anyway this is only a hypothesis that many use on how to see through the fog that has been brought onto us by the many sanctioning bodies.
You can find this same list in the back of every annual Ring almanac...
 
Last edited:
That is a really informative thread.
I used to watched a lot of boxing with my grandfather, but didn't follow it.
I watched the Tyson documentary earlier today, then researched the division.
This site needs more boxing fans like you guys.

So, as it stands, who is the linear and undisputed champ? and who is likely to succeed and take the belts from the Klitschko's?
 
Exposing The Lineal Title Myth
By John Vena

One conventional belief I share with the boxing community is the dismemberment of the sanctioning organizations known as the Alphabet Soup. To a certain degree, however, one of its belt holders can sometimes deserve the distinction of the actual Champion in the eyes of many. For this reason, I have always shuddered at the mention of the term "linear title holder". What is the difference?

At present, Lennox Lewis deserves to be credited as the best heavyweight in the world. However, it certainly has nothing to do with the fact that he knocked out Shannon Briggs. Briggs, as you may recall, was the lottery winner who inherited the title by receiving an unpopular decision over a fighter (George Foreman) who no longer wanted the responsibility of being the Heavyweight Champion of the World. Lewis' claim has to do with the fact that he bested Evander Holyfield over 12 rounds.
Until this past March, Holyfield was widely regarded as the best heavyweight in the world for drubbing the man who everyone felt was the best. Please do not tell me that Tyson was not the best big man in the business at the time Holyfield whupped him.

Let's face it. The actual stripping of champions, like it or not, can be justified and unjustified. In the case of George Foreman, who won the lineal title by kayoing Michael Moorer; I believe it to be justified. I definitely do not agree with the fighters who were chosen to fight for his vacant titles, but Foreman was not doing service to boxing or his title. The fact that he chose to defend against the likes of Axel Schultz and Crawford Grimsley proves this. Unlike Lewis and Holyfield, who were mandated their belt fitters to face Zeljko Mavrovic and Vaughn Bean, Foreman CHOSE to fight lesser opponents. As a result of Foreman's poor taste in title challengers, the boxing media began to question the validity of Foreman's claim to the heavyweight crown and his rating rightfully plummeted.

The origin of lineage is derived from whom we feel to be the best. Ideally, it should be commendable to recognize one world champion per weight class. However, the meaning of the term "lineage" confuses me. What premise did we have to designate anyone the right to be called Champion? Why was the Negro Heavyweight Championship (back in the early 1900's) not considered as the most coveted title to be won. Realistically, its titlist was probably better than what white America regarded as World Champion? As we were to find out, Jack Johnson was far more superior to Tommy Burns when given the opportunity to fight him. Who knows how many recorded title defenses (he made 11 successful at the time) little Tommy could have racked up? In the next several years, Johnson wiped the floor with most of the same challengers Burns defeated?

In another instance, what if the "son of a bitch in the house" who stood up and accepted John L. Sullivan's challenge was Peter Jackson? Society has always formulated its opinion of which fighter is the best by naming the individuals to fight for the distinction of World Champion. America decided
long ago that Sullivan, the American Champion, would begin the lineage as the first Heavyweight Champion of the World under the Marquis of Queensbury rules; not his English rival, Charlie Mitchell who fought Sullivan to a draw.

What of Sullivan's lineage? If you trace it from when it began, it ended 22 years later when Jim Jeffries retired as undefeated Champion. Are we to believe that the reigns of Larry Holmes and Jack Johnson began when they defeated two former champions (Ali and Jeffries respectively) who had been retired a couple of years? When champions retire, there is no more lineage. The buck stops there. It does not mean that boxing is over. It means we need to find out who the best is. When Gene Tunney and Rocky Marciano retired as undefeated heavyweight champions, two men were chosen to fight for heavyweight supremacy.

The light-heavyweight division is also a perfect example of the invalidity of tracing lineage. When Michael Spinks relinquished his undisputed light-heavyweight throne, top-notch fighters were chosen to fight for his vacated alphabet titles. From that point we had to name a fighter who we perceived to be the best in the world. There is a consistent argument today as to whether or not Roy Jones Jr.
should be regarded as the premier 175-pounder on the planet. Why would he not be? He is also mentioned as the best fighter in the world pound-for-pound. Though Dariusz Michalczewski is unbeaten in his impressive career and decisioned the man widely regarded as the "Man" (Virgil Hill) at the time, he did so under convenient circumstances. With no disrespect towards Michalczewski, he defeated Hill two months after the fight had been originally scheduled but was postponed when Hill injured his foot. Hill's lack of recovery time was a clear indication as to why his usual stick-and-move style was absent in their unification match. In my opinion, the injury was the likely reason as to why Hill was easy prey for the "Tiger". One year later, a healthier version of Virgil faced an inactive Jones Jr. and was uncharacteristically knocked out with a shot to the rib cage! As George Foreman blurted at the time of the knockdown, "Unheard of!!"

Whether one believes that Michalczewski is the best light-heavyweight in the world or not, the reasoning should not be because he is the linear champion. He's not. His lineage is linked to no one. If anything, Jones or Michalczewski should hire a freelance referee to dig up the grave of Archie Moore, stand over him and have the ref count "10." After all, the "Ole Mongoose" was stripped for refusing to defend a title he never lost in the ring.

Though the sanctioning (no)bodies are a clan of imbeciles who do not deserve to be making money, should we dishonor the fighters and their achievements? Fighters aren't obligated to organize their own world championships. They are there to fight who is put in front of them. Boxing as it mirrors
society, is a sad reflection of our capitalistic world. As much as we would not like the sport to be confusing, the game must go on. When and if the political arena of boxing is cleaned up, it all barrels down to who can prove it in the squared circle to the public eye.

I'll post my reply later, but good contribution TX (seriously).
 
Ring Champion ---------------->

In the back of the Ring Almanac they show the same lineage but they include the other alphabet titles which i left out,and i have to mention they themselves made the error of discontinuing their version of the Heavyweight championship during the early 90's which i believe left the common fan confused and disinterested....

And then theirs the crowning of Wladimir....

I dont agree that they gave the Ring belt to him for defeating Ruslan Chagaev when the only names on Chagaev's resume are John Ruiz and Nikolay Valuev

Its quite clear that Vitali is not only the obvious #2 contender but hes vastly superior to Chagaev,so when the difference between the #2 and #3 contenders are so vast.....how can they rightfully crown Wladimir the "Ring" champ for defeating Chagaev?

That type of reasoning is why we despise the other sanctioning bodies to begin with...
 
That is a really informative thread.
I used to watched a lot of boxing with my grandfather, but didn't follow it.
I watched the Tyson documentary earlier today, then researched the division.
This site needs more boxing fans like you guys.

So, as it stands, who is the linear and undisputed champ? and who is likely to succeed and take the belts from the Klitschko's?

Vitali has earned the title when he defeated Corrie Sanders(after Sanders KOed Wladimir) and the Ring confirms this as they awarded him the title after the fight so at that moment he was the "Undisputed Champ".He then defended his crown once and then retired for 4 years....

He returned in 2008 and defeated Samuel Peter in october,by March 2009 Ring considered him the #2 heavyweight in the world ahead of Ruslan Chagaev(acknowledging the difference in talent between the two) and then they award Wladimir the Ring belt in june after he defeats Chagaev....

The Rings policy clearly states in the case of a vacant title and i quote

"There are currently only two ways that a boxer can win The Ring's title: defeat the reigning champion; or win a box-off between the magazine's number-one and number-two rated contenders (or, sometimes, number-one and number-three rated). A vacant Ring championship is filled when the number-one contender in a weight-division battles the number-two contender or the number-three contender (in cases where The Ring determines that the number-two and number-three contenders are close in abilities and records)."

which in this case Vitali Klitschko and Ruslan Chagaev are nowhere near each other in terms of records or abilities...
 
Back
Top