Like It Or Not, The Throne Is Empty

A few months ago we witnessed one of the more memorable heavyweight battles of recent years as alphabet titleholder and top-two contender Deontay Wilder faced off against the last man with a claim to the lineal heavyweight championship of the world, Tyson Fury. It was an exciting, sometimes sloppy, and highly dramatic match, which Fury, in the eyes of most, deserved to win as he flummoxed Wilder with his cartoonish, herky-jerky head movement and surprisingly nimble footwork. But despite Fury’s superiority in boxing skill, the match remained a taut and tense contest to the very end as Wilder scored a knockdown in round nine before “The Bronze Bomber” nearly decapitated “The Gypsy King” in the final three minutes, a stanza which was clearly 2018’s Round Of The Year.

Fury and Wilder rumble.

The draw verdict was a disappointment but it allowed the Brit to hold on to a claim he had been making, and continues to make in earnest since his return to boxing in mid-2018, namely that he is the holder of the lineal heavyweight championship of the world. It’s a claim I’ve seen parroted in the boxing media with increasing frequency as knowledgeable pundits refer to Tyson Fury as the “lineal champion.” And this is frustrating to me, because I have long been an enthusiastic advocate for recognizing lineal title-holders.

One of boxing’s great flaws is the lack of uniformity around rankings and championships. Four different sanctioning bodies currently receive widespread recognition and are all deemed “official,” whatever that means. Each one extorts money from fighters for the honor of contending for their gaudy leather straps, and while winning one can be a boon to struggling boxers who are desperate for exposure and money, the proliferation of belts dilutes the meaning of the very term “world champion.” (And we won’t even go into all the nonsense of belts for “regular,” “gold,” “silver,” “youth” or “super” champions.)

Boxing is flooded with so-called “world” titles.

The idea of lineal titles being more legitimate than those handed out by sanctioning bodies has gained some traction of late, and perhaps that has something to do with the fact that significant numbers of fight fans embraced Fury’s lineal claim. Naturally it’s more satisfying to have an actual leader at the top of the division than just a bunch of contenders with belts circling an empty throne. But at the same time it’s important to make sure we get it right before we proclaim someone to be a lineal champ or we defeat the whole purpose.

So, to be clear, Tyson Fury indeed was the lineal heavyweight champion. He gained that status with his upset win over Wladimir Klitschko in 2015. Klitschko, it should be mentioned, became the king of the heavyweights through attrition as much as from any single win. Depending on one’s preferences, Klitschko either picked up the lineal title from Ruslan Chagaev in 2009, or from Alexander Povetkin in 2013. Either way, it was universally agreed that “Dr. Steelhammer” had established himself as the true ruler of the division, the rightful heir to the throne that had been left vacant when Lennox Lewis retired in 2004.

Fury was the legit king after he beat Wlad.

So here’s the problem. In October of 2016, Tyson Fury surrendered his alphabet titles and his status as the true world heavyweight champion when he announced he was officially retiring. This decision was the outcome of a struggle with alcohol, drugs, and depression following his upset win over Klitschko.

“I’m unable to defend at this time and I have taken the hard and emotional decision to now officially vacate my treasured world titles,” he had declared. “I feel that it is only fair and right and for the good of boxing to keep the titles active and allow the other contenders to fight for the vacant belts that I proudly won and held as the undefeated heavyweight champion of the world.”

Some regard Anthony Joshua as the real champion.

And then the confusion began. The two most respected arbiters of championship lineage quickly diverged; while the Transnational Boxing Rankings Board almost immediately declared their heavyweight championship vacant, The Ring took nearly a year to do the same. Fury stayed idle for some 30 months and in that time two big names made their way to the top of division, Deontay Wilder and Anthony Joshua. It can be argued that both have since eclipsed Fury in terms of their accomplishments during his absence.

It’s generally agreed that there are only two ways to break a championship lineage. Retiring is the most obvious option. Beyond that, abdication through inactivity or a change of weight class would be the other. So for many it seemed obvious that, given Fury’s announcement, plus his absence from the ring, he had effectively surrendered his hold on the lineal heavyweight championship of the world.

Wilder battles Ortiz: not a legit championship fight?

As a point of comparison, there have been a few significant gaps in activity rivaling or exceeding the length of Fury’s absence since John L. Sullivan, the first universally recognized lineal heavyweight champion. Jess Willard waited three and half years to make his second title defense, though he fought a number of exhibitions, and never formally relinquished his crown. Similarly, Jack Dempsey had more than one long delay between championship fights with gaps of two years between his third and fourth defenses and his fifth and sixth defenses. During those periods, he didn’t retire or announce an extended break from the sport, and he certainly didn’t relinquish his title.

Two years elapsed between Jim Braddock’s title victory over Max Baer and his knockout loss to Joe Louis in 1937. He had in fact scheduled a title defense against former champion Max Schmeling roughly a year later, but he was forced to cancel the match due to a hand injury. But while “The Cinderella Man” may not have been an active champion, he didn’t give up his title or retire.

Jack Dempsey enjoyed long vacations.

In 1967, Muhammad Ali made his ninth world title defense before refusing to be drafted by the U.S. army. His boxing licenses were suspended, and he would not compete for three-and-a-half years. He was still regarded as lineal champion with many recognizing him as such until February 1, 1970, when he officially announced he would drop his claim to allow the winner of the match between Joe Frazier and Jimmy Ellis to be crowned the new king.

Ali would regain the title a few years later from George Foreman, and then lose it in a huge upset defeat to Leon Spinks. Ali then won the rematch and soon after retired and in the months that followed Larry Holmes, John Tate and Mike Weaver held versions of the world title with the lineal championship in limbo until October 2, 1980. On that day, Ali came out of retirement long enough to suffer a ten round beating at the hands of Holmes. It was a sad day for many, but it served to establish Holmes as the true king, especially as he held a stoppage win over rival title-holder Weaver.

Holmes vs Spinks: for the lineal championship.

Michael Spinks would defeat Holmes in 1985 and then hold the lineal title for two years and nine months, losing it via frightening first round demolition to Mike Tyson. Eventually, Evander Holyfield would seize the true crown after knocking out James “Buster” Douglas, who had defeated Tyson, before it was passed on to Michael Moorer and then, in a shocking one-punch KO, to a 45-year-old George Foreman. Foreman then lost to Shannon Briggs, who then lost to Lennox Lewis, and then we had the aforementioned gap from Lewis’ retirement to that point when Wladimir Klitschko gained universal recognition.

But even then, the vast majority of those who followed the sport considered Klitschko the defacto champion from about 2006 on, so the lineal status was largely for the super-nerds who cared about continuity and a proper lineage. Now it seems the lineal title isn’t just for nerds anymore. I no longer find myself debating on boxing forums why Zsolt Erdei is the real light heavyweight champion instead of Antonio Tarver, Glen Johnson or Bernard Hopkins. Tyson Fury may not be number one in most rankings, but boxing media has been happy to call him the lineal king of the big men.

Ali stepped aside so Joe Frazier could become the lineal king.

I want to be happy about this. While the alphabet baubles aren’t going anywhere, it appears there’s more attention given to the legit champion in each division. But in the case of the heavyweights, it seems many are overlooking the fact that Tyson Fury quit his job as heavyweight champion. He dropped his titles and formally opened up the path for others to take his place. He did what Muhammad Ali did in 1970. Ali was hoping to return but he didn’t know when that would happen, and he didn’t want to hold the heavyweight title hostage as he and his lawyers argued his case in various courtrooms. Of course Ali would eventually return and then win back his crown, and Tyson Fury may follow in his footsteps, but he hasn’t yet.

And even if we agree that the draw verdict at the end of Wilder vs Fury was unjust, the fact remains that the match by itself did not represent a battle for the lineal title. I understand that a vacant crown is distinctly unsatisfying and being able to point to Tyson Fury as the true king of the heavyweights would solve a lot of problems. But when it comes to lineal championships, there can be no shortcuts. At this point, nothing less than a round-robin involving Fury, Wilder and Joshua is needed to determine who the rightful ruler is. It’s not what most want to hear, but it is the truth.

Unfortunately, a Fury vs Wilder rematch isn’t happening any time soon.

That said, recent developments may make such an outcome increasingly unlikely. Tyson Fury has announced a new deal where he will be co-promoted by Top Rank, with his fights to be aired on ESPN. The problem is that Showtime had already claimed the rights to a rematch between Fury and Wilder and now that fight is off.

Meanwhile, Wilder has signed to face Dominic Breazeale in May, and Joshua will take on Jarrell Miller in June so Fury will no doubt lean more heavily on his lineal claim as a way to keep himself relevant until he can get another shot at one of the top guys. This will reinforce the narrative of his lineal status, but the simple truth remains: he cannot rewrite history. He cannot take back what he did and said in October of 2016. Like it or not, as of right now, the lineal championship of the world is up for grabs. The hallowed throne of the heavyweight king is empty.             

— Hunter Breckenridge

Become a patron at Patreon!

5 thoughts on “Like It Or Not, The Throne Is Empty

  • November 22, 2019 at 11:28 am

    Tyson Fury is NOT lineal champ because Wlad Klitschko was NOT lineal champ. When Lennox Lewis who was the lineal champ retired, the only belt he still had was the WBC belt. Since he did not have the other major belts, you can’t follow those lines. Vitali Klitschko fought for and won the WBC belt after Lennox retired. Thus Vitali was the lineal champ and since he did not lose after winning the championship, he was the lineal champ until retirement. After Vitali retired, Deontay Wilder fought for the vacant heavyweight title and won it so that makes him the lineal champ!

    • November 22, 2019 at 11:57 am

      The alphabet soup belts don’t matter when it comes to the lineal title. When Lennox Lewis retired, the line was broken. The vacancy didn’t mean the WBC belt represented the uncrowned lineal champ.

      The next champ would have to be crowned via general consensus. The top two contenders in the division would have to face off in order for that to happen. The WBC belt meant literally nothing to that. A top contender could have any belts or zero belts.

      The first time this occurred at heavyweight, post Lewis, was either Wlad vs Chagaev in 2009, or Wlad vs Povetkin in 2013, depending on one’s preference for the mitigating circumstances of the 1 vs 3 matchup in 2009.

      Regardless, the lineal title has little to do with the alphabet soup belts. When Fury dropped his belts, he made it clear he was dropping his general claim to the throne, not just the leather straps. That’s why I wrote this piece.

      When Wilder beat Stiverne for the WBC belt, neither man was the top fighter at heavy, and the lineal title was almost universally agreed to have been claimed at that point.

      • December 19, 2019 at 3:05 pm

        That is the problem! Wlad was NOT the best heavyweight when Lewis retired. Vitali was way better. That is my point. It is not about the WBC, you missed the point! The line is always broken when a champ retires! It’s about what line to follow. You can’t just pick two random guys and say they are fighting for the title. Wlad was beaten badly by Corrie Sanders and then by Lamon Brewster so that sent him way down the list. Vitali had to be the line. You cannot just simply ignore Vitali’s existence because Wlad picked up “alphabet soup” belts from journeymen.

        • December 19, 2019 at 3:21 pm

          Vitali was retired for four years and didn’t come back until 2008. In that time, Wlad’s resume surpassed Vitali’s. Wlad’s total career resume vastly surpasses his older brother.

          Meanwhile, when he picked up the lineal title (per Ring and CBZ) in 2009, he beat the number 3 heavyweight in the world. If you prefer TBRB, he beat the number 2 heavyweight in 2013. Either way, they weren’t journeymen. While he fought his share of fringe guys, Wlad consistently fought and beat the best available opponents.

          Anyway, this isn’t a debate. Pretty much every boxing expert and publication that matters considered Wlad Klitschko the lineal champ when he lost to Tyson Fury. If you want to debate that, take it up with the Transnational Boxing Ratings Board, the Ring, Cliff Rold, Cyber Boxing Zone, etcetera…

    • August 8, 2020 at 7:59 am

      It doesn’t matter now. Tyson Fury is now the lineal champion. He beat Wladimir and Wilder.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *