Lennox confused by Fury words
-
handsofstone
- Cruiserweight
- Posts: 23222
- Joined: 11 Jan 2011, 17:28
Re: Lennox confused by Fury words
I read in a post earlier in this thread that Lewis beat Ruddock for the Commonwealth,i thought Razor was American,is he Canadian?
-
reggaereggae
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 4723
- Joined: 21 Dec 2009, 17:01
Re: Lennox confused by Fury words
Canadian, Jamaicanhandsofstone wrote:I read in a post earlier in this thread that Lewis beat Ruddock for the Commonwealth,i thought Razor was American,is he Canadian?
-
handsofstone
- Cruiserweight
- Posts: 23222
- Joined: 11 Jan 2011, 17:28
Re: Lennox confused by Fury words
Cheers Reggaereggaereggae wrote:Canadian, Jamaicanhandsofstone wrote:I read in a post earlier in this thread that Lewis beat Ruddock for the Commonwealth,i thought Razor was American,is he Canadian?
-
Tuan_Jim
- Heavyweight

Re: Lennox confused by Fury words
What claim could Ibragimov or Chagaev have on the lineal crown? Second raters with nary a meaningful win betwixt them.SNG wrote:Wladimir became lineal at some point surely? Either against Ibragimov or Chagaev.banjo wrote:Also there hasn't been a lineal champion for 12 years, Wlad has never been the undisputed champion.
Wlad K was never undisputed nor lineal. He was never dominant either, unless you think dominant means 'there's a harder, better man simultaneously defending the WBC title but I absorb all his accomplishments'.
Re: Lennox confused by Fury words
What are you on about? Who ever said either were lineal champions? They both lost in their title fights with Klitschko, I had a look around and most credit the lineal title as being decided between Chagaev and Klitschko.Tuan_Jim wrote:What claim could Ibragimov or Chagaev have on the lineal crown? Second raters with nary a meaningful win betwixt them.SNG wrote:Wladimir became lineal at some point surely? Either against Ibragimov or Chagaev.banjo wrote:Also there hasn't been a lineal champion for 12 years, Wlad has never been the undisputed champion.
Wlad K was never undisputed nor lineal. He was never dominant either, unless you think dominant means 'there's a harder, better man simultaneously defending the WBC title but I absorb all his accomplishments'.
-
Tuan_Jim
- Heavyweight

Re: Lennox confused by Fury words
The lineal, supposedly, was decided by Vitali K and Corrie Sanders, as horrific as that is to conjure with.SNG wrote:What are you on about? Who ever said either were lineal champions? They both lost in their title fights with Klitschko, I had a look around and most credit the lineal title as being decided between Chagaev and Klitschko.Tuan_Jim wrote:What claim could Ibragimov or Chagaev have on the lineal crown? Second raters with nary a meaningful win betwixt them.SNG wrote:
Wladimir became lineal at some point surely? Either against Ibragimov or Chagaev.
Wlad K was never undisputed nor lineal. He was never dominant either, unless you think dominant means 'there's a harder, better man simultaneously defending the WBC title but I absorb all his accomplishments'.
Vitali K was WBC champ in 2009. Anyone who claims Wlad K vs Chagaev was for the lineal title must be ignorant to boxing tradition.
Re: Lennox confused by Fury words
Don't be ridiculous. Vitali was retired for four years, the lineal title moves on or it never would have gone passed about 1905. Wlad was the lineal champion, and now is Tyson Fury, I don't really care what you think about that either.Tuan_Jim wrote:
The lineal, supposedly, was decided by Vitali K and Corrie Sanders, as horrific as that is to conjure with.
Vitali K was WBC champ in 2009. Anyone who claims Wlad K vs Chagaev was for the lineal title must be ignorant to boxing tradition.
-
Tuan_Jim
- Heavyweight

Re: Lennox confused by Fury words
Nope. Not if the champ comes out of retirement. See Johnson/Jeffries, Holmes/Ali, Louis/Charles et al. As I say, your stance is borne of ignorance.SNG wrote:Don't be ridiculous. Vitali was retired for four years, the lineal title moves on or it never would have gone passed about 1905. Wlad was the lineal champion, and now is Tyson Fury, I don't really care what you think about that either.Tuan_Jim wrote:
The lineal, supposedly, was decided by Vitali K and Corrie Sanders, as horrific as that is to conjure with.
Vitali K was WBC champ in 2009. Anyone who claims Wlad K vs Chagaev was for the lineal title must be ignorant to boxing tradition.
Re: Lennox confused by Fury words
So Lewis comes out of retirement the claims you say Vitali has are nullified? Bollocks.Tuan_Jim wrote:Nope. Not if the champ comes out of retirement. See Johnson/Jeffries, Holmes/Ali, Louis/Charles et al. As I say, your stance is borne of ignorance.SNG wrote:Don't be ridiculous. Vitali was retired for four years, the lineal title moves on or it never would have gone passed about 1905. Wlad was the lineal champion, and now is Tyson Fury, I don't really care what you think about that either.Tuan_Jim wrote:
The lineal, supposedly, was decided by Vitali K and Corrie Sanders, as horrific as that is to conjure with.
Vitali K was WBC champ in 2009. Anyone who claims Wlad K vs Chagaev was for the lineal title must be ignorant to boxing tradition.
Either way, don't take it up with me, take it up with the many sites that track the line of the lineal title. Drop them an email, I'm sure they'll give as much of a fornicate about your opinion as I do.
Re: Lennox confused by Fury words
I think those guys just happened to have beaten a returning lineal champion by chance but the wins did not cement their stature as they were already considered the real champion going into the fights. Had any of those three wins not happened, Johnson, Holmes and Charles would still have claimed the lineal championship.Tuan_Jim wrote:Nope. Not if the champ comes out of retirement. See Johnson/Jeffries, Holmes/Ali, Louis/Charles et al. As I say, your stance is borne of ignorance.SNG wrote:Don't be ridiculous. Vitali was retired for four years, the lineal title moves on or it never would have gone passed about 1905. Wlad was the lineal champion, and now is Tyson Fury, I don't really care what you think about that either.Tuan_Jim wrote:
The lineal, supposedly, was decided by Vitali K and Corrie Sanders, as horrific as that is to conjure with.
Vitali K was WBC champ in 2009. Anyone who claims Wlad K vs Chagaev was for the lineal title must be ignorant to boxing tradition.
If not, you are saying that no one post Marciano was lineal champion and it died with Rocky. That means Ali, Foreman, Frazier, Tyson etc can not be considered lineal either.
Re: Lennox confused by Fury words
Since Marciano...
Patterson > Johannson > Patterson > Liston > Ali > Frazier > Foreman > Ali > Leon Spinks > Ali > Holmes > Michael Spinks > Tyson > Douglas > Holyfield > Bowe > Holyfield > Moorer > Foreman > Briggs > Lewis > Rahman > Lewis > end.
Nobody has unified the division since.
Patterson > Johannson > Patterson > Liston > Ali > Frazier > Foreman > Ali > Leon Spinks > Ali > Holmes > Michael Spinks > Tyson > Douglas > Holyfield > Bowe > Holyfield > Moorer > Foreman > Briggs > Lewis > Rahman > Lewis > end.
Nobody has unified the division since.
Re: Lennox confused by Fury words
Lewis ended as lineal, not undisputed.
Holyfield onwards were lineal but not undisputed. When did being undisputed become accepted criteria. Your own examples defeat your argument
Briggs did not even own a recognised alphabet title. I do not think owning pieces of garbage alphabet titles makes the lineal championship.
Holyfield onwards were lineal but not undisputed. When did being undisputed become accepted criteria. Your own examples defeat your argument
Briggs did not even own a recognised alphabet title. I do not think owning pieces of garbage alphabet titles makes the lineal championship.
Last edited by tobyh5 on 13 Dec 2015, 11:05, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Lennox confused by Fury words
You don't have to unify the division, we're talking lineal not undisputed. How can you even unify titles these days when organisations strip a fighter two weeks after he wins their title?banjo wrote:Since Marciano...
Patterson > Johannson > Patterson > Liston > Ali > Frazier > Foreman > Ali > Leon Spinks > Ali > Holmes > Michael Spinks > Tyson > Douglas > Holyfield > Bowe > Holyfield > Moorer > Foreman > Briggs > Lewis > Rahman > Lewis > end.
Nobody has unified the division since.
Re: Lennox confused by Fury words
We could probably argue about this for days but I think we can all agree that by beating Wlad Tyson Fury is very much the man in the division right now.
Re: Lennox confused by Fury words
Lewis was undisputed, he won the WBC/WBA/IBF and defeated the lineal champion and defeated the WBO champion but never held that belt due to some dispute between the WBC and WBO but yes Lewis beat everyone he needed to beat to become the undisputed heavyweight champion.
Re: Lennox confused by Fury words
And Moorer/Foreman/Briggs/Bowe?banjo wrote:Lewis was undisputed, he won the WBC/WBA/IBF and defeated the lineal champion and defeated the WBO champion but never held that belt due to some dispute between the WBC and WBO but yes Lewis beat everyone he needed to beat to become the undisputed heavyweight champion.
-
HomicideHenry
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 18722
- Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43
Re: Lennox confused by Fury words
tobyh5 wrote:Lewis ended as lineal, not undisputed.
Holyfield onwards were lineal but not undisputed. When did being undisputed become accepted criteria. Your own examples defeat your argument
Briggs did not even own a recognised alphabet title. I do not think owning pieces of garbage alphabet titles makes the lineal championship.
Not true, because if it really came down to the old axiom "to be the man you have to beat the man" then the true lineal championship ended with Gene Tunney.... and everyone else since him has been a pretender to the crown... When Lewis retired, it came down to who held the most belts, and had the most defenses, to become the lineal champion... The same ordeal that Larry Holmes suffered while as champion, as he didn't hold all the belts (although one can say he won the lineal title when he defeated Ali, just like Jack Johnson won the lineal title from Jim Jeffries in his failed comeback).
Re: Lennox confused by Fury words
Bowe beat the undisputed champion Holyfield, after that yes the division became fragmented because Bowe binned the WBC belt then he lost to Holyfield, then Holyfield lost to Moorer who lost to Foreman who then vacated the WBA and IBF belts creating a situation in which several fighters held belts and claims to the world heavyweight championship and Lewis cleaned up.tobyh5 wrote:And Moorer/Foreman/Briggs/Bowe?banjo wrote:Lewis was undisputed, he won the WBC/WBA/IBF and defeated the lineal champion and defeated the WBO champion but never held that belt due to some dispute between the WBC and WBO but yes Lewis beat everyone he needed to beat to become the undisputed heavyweight champion.
Re: Lennox confused by Fury words
Damn I forget about Gene.
I hang my head in shame.
I am not arguing the point by the way, just answering the daft posts with actual facts and not revealing my own thoughts.
Had I remembered that damn Tunney I would have used it.
So basically, on the arguments presented there have been no lineals since 1927 or on the other argument of owning all belts, Briggs, Moorer, Foreman never held the title. Nor Bowe or Holyfield or Douglas really as WBO was in existence
I hang my head in shame.
I am not arguing the point by the way, just answering the daft posts with actual facts and not revealing my own thoughts.
Had I remembered that damn Tunney I would have used it.
So basically, on the arguments presented there have been no lineals since 1927 or on the other argument of owning all belts, Briggs, Moorer, Foreman never held the title. Nor Bowe or Holyfield or Douglas really as WBO was in existence
Re: Lennox confused by Fury words
Who do you consider to be lineal then? Or did Lewis retire and it's yet to be decided.
Re: Lennox confused by Fury words
Yet to be decided. Fury needs to beat Wilder.SNG wrote:Who do you consider to be lineal then? Or did Lewis retire and it's yet to be decided.
Re: Lennox confused by Fury words
So you'd ignore the eventual IBF champion, whoever it is?banjo wrote:Yet to be decided. Fury needs to beat Wilder.SNG wrote:Who do you consider to be lineal then? Or did Lewis retire and it's yet to be decided.
Re: Lennox confused by Fury words
Yep because Fury has just beaten the man who has held it for the last 10 years, WBO 7 years and WBA 5 years.SNG wrote:So you'd ignore the eventual IBF champion, whoever it is?banjo wrote:Yet to be decided. Fury needs to beat Wilder.SNG wrote:Who do you consider to be lineal then? Or did Lewis retire and it's yet to be decided.
Re: Lennox confused by Fury words
Well for me Wlad was lineal, even if you discount Chagaev he beat Povetkin after Vitali retired, who was the recognised number 2 at the time.
-
Tuan_Jim
- Heavyweight

Re: Lennox confused by Fury words
This is it.banjo wrote:Since Marciano...
Patterson > Johannson > Patterson > Liston > Ali > Frazier > Foreman > Ali > Leon Spinks > Ali > Holmes > Michael Spinks > Tyson > Douglas > Holyfield > Bowe > Holyfield > Moorer > Foreman > Briggs > Lewis > Rahman > Lewis > end.
Nobody has unified the division since.
There were attempts to have Vitali vs Corrie Sanders recognised, some people did, it certainly suited the HBO and Ring mag agenda, and a certain mentality of boxing fan, but many couldn't accept it. Vitali, a loser vs Lewis, and Corrie, a fringe contender pushing 40, a man too many remembered all too clearly from his 90s performances, was too much to take.
There were attempts to do the same with Wlad K vs Chagaev and Haye, but again, too ridiculous - particularly if Vitali K was the lineal champ - because he was back and defending his title.
Nobody has unified the division since Lennox Lewis. Cry all you want, but read up on boxing history.