LINEAL TITLE IS ON THE LINE !

[jamamb]

All these justifications that Wlad started a new line of lineage as he cleared out the division all pretty much contain 2 things

1. Except Vitali

2. Except wilder

Wlad was never undisputed at the division, he’s number 1 or was rather, for sure, but hence my reasoning that fury was a paper lineal champ, as Wlad was a true one either

Lennox Lewis was the last true lineal champion with history

eh, not really buying that argument in terms of wlad lacking the dominance for it. if your gonna say that its not a matter of dominance okay, but if you hold that a guy can be dominant enough to claim lineage then i think wlad was a pretty clear case of that happening. and look at the time line

vitali retired in 2012 and wilder hadnt even beat a top 10 fighter until 2015. guys like povetkin and pulev were higher rated as contenders until that time and wlad beat both of them. wilder especially really has no bearing on wlad being lineal or not. omg hed beaten malik scott and audley harrison!! LOL, this isnt the current wilder were talking about with several defenses and an ortiz win.

basically, if you say wlad wasnt been dominant enough, because of pre 2015-wilder, then your imposing a standard that requires a guy to have beaten every somewhat decent contender out there, but thats almost impossible when divisions are in flux and new guys keep popping up

from 2012-2015, wlad was about as clear 1 as it gets. he was prob the most dominant champ in any division, or at least close to it.

[Lackeos]

All these justifications that Wlad started a new line of lineage as he cleared out the division all pretty much contain 2 things

1. Except Vitali

2. Except wilder

Except Wilder?? Don't nobody need to make no damned exceptions for Wilder. Wilder wasn't even in the divisional top 10 until the same year that Wlad lost to Fury. That was 5 years after Wlad cleaned-out the division the first time around and a few months after he cleaned out the division a second time around. Wlad already did enough to restart the lineage twice over before Wilder was even in the picture. Are we just naming fighters who aren't in the picture now?

Also, I just reviewed the thread and determined that no one ever said "except Wilder." No one.

[jamamb]

its true, wilders pretty much irrelevant to it, by the time he really emerged wlad had been the absolute clear 1 for some fair years already and then would soon lose to fury. wilder didnt beat a single top 10 guy till 2015 and his record was pretty weak till then....kelvin price, audley, scott isnt nearly enough to say he prevented wlad from being dominant

[Enlightened-One]

All these justifications that Wlad started a new line of lineage as he cleared out the division all pretty much contain 2 things

1. Except Vitali

2. Except wilder

Wlad was never undisputed at the division, he’s number 1 or was rather, for sure, but hence my reasoning that fury was a paper lineal champ, as Wlad was a true one either

Lennox Lewis was the last true lineal champion with history

Wladimir Klitschko became the lineal world heavyweight champion when he defeated Ruslan Chagaev in 2009 for the vacant RING Magazine world heavyweight championship. The Uzbekistani was the WBA champion, whilst the Ukraine held the IBF, IBO and WBO belts.

It was clear that Wladimir was never going to face his brother Vitali, so The RING Magazine rightly decided to make the winner of the bout between Klitschko (rated 1st) and Chagaev (rated 3rd) their newly-crowned RING champion.

The RING was not alone in declaring Wladimir the lineal champion after defeating Chagaev, Cyberboxing did also.

In 2009, both the media and also the fight fans pretty much unanimously considered Wladimir Klitschko as the top-dog of the heavyweight division and most regarded him as the lineal champion... certainly not a "paper" champion!

History cannot be rewritten to suit your preferred narrative. Please do your research and refrain from making claims that are blatantly untrue, since we’re not talking about a "difference of opinion" here, instead we’re discussing "an historical fact!" that is simply not up for debate!

For the record, the heavyweight lineage has been broken multiple times throughout the course of history, so if a fighter can only become the linear champion by becoming “the man that beat the man”, then by your reckoning, Lennox Lewis was only a “paper champion”, since he technically beat one too! And we all know that making such an absurd claim is utter bÕllÕcks!

Do you not see the flaws in your reasoning?

Lennox Lewis and Wladimir Klitshcko were both genuine lineal champions! Tyson Fury’s claim as being the current lineal champion is legitimate.

[Deleted_Scenes]

Wladimir Klitschko became the lineal world heavyweight champion when he defeated Ruslan Chagaev in 2009 for the vacant RING Magazine world heavyweight championship. The Uzbekistani was the WBA champion, whilst the Ukraine held the IBF, IBO and WBO belts.

It was clear that Wladimir was never going to face his brother Vitali, so The RING Magazine rightly decided to make the winner of the bout between Klitschko (rated 1st) and Chagaev (rated 3rd) their newly-crowned RING champion.

I disagree with that point. Ring and lineal titles aren't the same thing. Ring may award their belt in 1 vs 3 scenarios, but lineal doesn't work like that.

There can't be any doubt with lineal. If there is a clear number 1 and 2 (as there was), they have to fight, otherwise the claim to the lineal title is vacant. The only exception to this, is where no clear number 2 exists, and the number 1 manages to collect all 4 belts.

Wlad was the lineal champion, but not in 2009. He had to beat Povetkin (clear number 2 after Vitali retired) to gain that honour. That's something Doug Fischer, and the majority of Ring staff, agree on.

As for Fury, he gained the lineal title from Wlad, then announced his retirement. Normally, retirement instantly vacates the claim to the title. Fury likely gets a pass on that, for not really being retired. Most do see Fury as lineal champion, now he's actually facing a threat. That wasn't really the case when he first announced his comeback against 'TBA' (Seferi).

I personally feel the Fury vs Wilder winner needs to fight Joshua, to remove any doubt.

[Lennox]

Lineage has NO rules.

[BitPlayer]

Once a lineal champion retires, I was under the impression the lineal status is vacant until a new undisputed champion is crowned. So, what Fury says makes perfect sense. By definition, he is the lineal champion. During his absence, no boxer became undisputed.

John L Sullivan, James J Corbett and Bob Fitzsimmons all spent years retired between winning and loosing the lineal title.

[Enlightened-One]

Wladimir Klitschko became the lineal world heavyweight champion when he defeated Ruslan Chagaev in 2009 for the vacant RING Magazine world heavyweight championship. The Uzbekistani was the WBA champion, whilst the Ukraine held the IBF, IBO and WBO belts.

It was clear that Wladimir was never going to face his brother Vitali, so The RING Magazine rightly decided to make the winner of the bout between Klitschko (rated 1st) and Chagaev (rated 3rd) their newly-crowned RING champion.

I disagree with that point. Ring and lineal titles aren't the same thing. Ring may award their belt in 1 vs 3 scenarios, but lineal doesn't work like that.

The media and fight fans proclaimed Wladimir Klitschko as the lineal world heavyweight champion when he defeated Ruslan Chagaev.

Wikipedia, Cyber Boxing (aka LinealBoxingChampion.com), Sports Illustrated, Fight Saga, Boxing Scene, ThaBoxingVoice and the list goes on... all claim Wladimir Klitschko as being the lineal world heavyweight champion before his bout against Alexander Povetkin.

Also, the RING and lineal championships used to be intertwined with each other.

It's a pointless debate anyway, since we both agree that Wladimir Klitschko and Tyson Fury have legitimate caims to the ownership (at one point or another), of the lineal heavyweight crown. It doesn't matter if we agree or disagree about the timelines or the lengths of their title reigns, since my main point was that neither Klitschko nor Fury were "paper champions".

[SteveO]

This is what I make of the lineal champion list:

You won't find that list in any history books.
I'm sorry to say it's a load of crap.

[DrDuke]

This is what I make of the lineal champion list:

But why the lineage should return to the conquered champion, if his conqueror retires? You are not a champion in any case, if you lose. Even if the winner of a title is stripped of it, the title doesn't go back to the previous champ.

[jamamb]

Lineage has NO rules.

thats one issue i have with it. that a guy like fury can get that status, and then spend the next 3 years mainly inactive and obese, come back and beat crap, and then get treated like hes somehow still 'the man', even though in that time ajs beaten not only wlad but many other opponents that make his record much stronger then furys. and wilder too doing much more.

divisions change but lineal, with pretty much no rules or title obligations, lets a guy like fury freeze himself on it

[SenorPipino]

What if Lewis decides on a comeback? Lineal returns to him?

Tunney, technically still holds the accolade. It died with him.

That's how I look at it.

Didn't Fury announce one or twice that he was retiring, when he was on his 2 year + hiatus?

Doesn't Fury forfeit his right to the lineal title claim once he retires?

If not Lewis also holds the lineal title and can lay claim to still being champion if he ever returns.

[Deleted_Scenes]

It's a pointless debate anyway, since we both agree that Wladimir Klitschko and Tyson Fury have legitimate caims to the ownership (at one point or another), of the lineal heavyweight crown. It doesn't matter if we agree or disagree about the timelines or the lengths of their title reigns, since my main point was that neither Klitschko nor Fury were "paper champions".

I'm nitpicking on the Wlad timeline. Admittedly, it doesn't matter.

Interestingly, CBZ (generally seen as the authority on lineage) lists Tyson Fury's lineal status as "2015-2015, stripped, retired".

[Deleted_Scenes]

What if Lewis decides on a comeback? Lineal returns to him?

Tunney, technically still holds the accolade. It died with him.

That's how I look at it.

Didn't Fury announce one or twice that he was retiring, when he was on his 2 year + hiatus?

Doesn't Fury forfeit his right to the lineal title claim once he retires?

If not Lewis also holds the lineal title and can lay claim to still being champion if he ever returns.

That's how I see it too. Retirement = forfeiture. If we're saying retirement doesn't vacate the belt, then doesn't someone need to dig up James J. Jeffries, and beat him to get the title?

There's precedent for this too. Ali left the lineal title vacant, when he retired in 1970. On his return, he had to win it back in the ring (1974 vs Foreman). It wasn't just handed back to him.

I see the lineal title as vacant (as do Cyber Boxing Zone, who are the most respected record keeper of lineage). We'll have a new champion if/when the Fury/Wilder winner fights Joshua.

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/achamp.htm

"Tyson Fury 2015-2015, stripped, retired"

[DrDuke]

I agree with the opinion, that retirement equals forfeiture. That's the most logical decision. But should Fury be stripped of the title? He has actually never retired. Yes, he stated himself, that his career was over, and that was for not a single time, but all those claims didn't look like true, but like a gathering of an attention, while struggling with all troubles, which had made him to be inactive. Inactive, but not retired.

[SenorPipino]

What if Lewis decides on a comeback? Lineal returns to him?

Tunney, technically still holds the accolade. It died with him.

That's how I look at it.

Didn't Fury announce one or twice that he was retiring, when he was on his 2 year + hiatus?

Doesn't Fury forfeit his right to the lineal title claim once he retires?

If not Lewis also holds the lineal title and can lay claim to still being champion if he ever returns.

That's how I see it too. Retirement = forfeiture. If we're saying retirement doesn't vacate the belt, then doesn't someone need to dig up James J. Jeffries, and beat him to get the title?

There's precedent for this too. Ali left the lineal title vacant, when he retired in 1970. On his return, he had to win it back in the ring (1974 vs Foreman). It wasn't just handed back to him.

I see the lineal title as vacant (as do Cyber Boxing Zone, who are the most respected record keeper of lineage). We'll have a new champion if/when the Fury/Wilder winner fights Joshua.

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/achamp.htm

"Tyson Fury 2015-2015, stripped, retired"

Nat Fleischer, then editor/publisher of the influential Ring Magazine, finally stripped Ali (although he continued to call him Clay) of Ring recognition as champion, when Ali announced he was retiring in 1970.

Even though Fleischer despised Ali, he continued to recognize him as champion until that announced retirement.

[SteveO]

I agree with the opinion, that retirement equals forfeiture. That's the most logical decision. But should Fury be stripped of the title? He has actually never retired. Yes, he stated himself, that his career was over, and that was for not a single time, but all those claims didn't look like true, but like a gathering of an attention, while struggling with all troubles, which had made him to be inactive. Inactive, but not retired.

This is true.
The reason Fury did not fight for over 2 years is because he didn't have a boxing licence. It had been suspended while the drug investigation was underway.
Plenty of former champions had longer breaks between title defences.

[SteveO]

doesn't someone need to dig up James J. Jeffries, and beat him to get the title?

No need - Jack Johnson sorted that out!

[Deleted_Scenes]

doesn't someone need to dig up James J. Jeffries, and beat him to get the title?

No need - Jack Johnson sorted that out!

Of course. I forgot he didn't stay retired.

Johnson picked up the lineal title a couple of years before that, right?

Does that make Tunney the first to retire while holding the lineal title, and stay retired?

[Deleted_Scenes]

I agree with the opinion, that retirement equals forfeiture. That's the most logical decision. But should Fury be stripped of the title? He has actually never retired. Yes, he stated himself, that his career was over, and that was for not a single time, but all those claims didn't look like true, but like a gathering of an attention, while struggling with all troubles, which had made him to be inactive. Inactive, but not retired.

This is true.
The reason Fury did not fight for over 2 years is because he didn't have a boxing licence. It had been suspended while the drug investigation was underway.
Plenty of former champions had longer breaks between title defences.

Fury announced his retirement multiple times, then ballooned up in weight. It's not like he was still in the gym training. Precisely 0% of his life, at that point, was lived as a professional boxer.

I view that as enough to declare any titles vacant, even if there was a suspicion it wouldn't be permanent.

[littlepug]

It seems Heavyweight is the only division that actually even mentions the lineal title, think ive heard the middles talk about their lineage but no other division seems to care who their lineal champ is.

[DrDuke]

This is what I make of the lineal champion list:

But why the lineage should return to the conquered champion, if his conqueror retires? You are not a champion in any case, if you lose. Even if the winner of a title is stripped of it, the title doesn't go back to the previous champ.

Oké, but then how should the line continue? Or should we just forget about the price completely?

I guess, it's just more logical to start new lineages. Like it's actually common to do.

[SteveO]

Oké, but then how should the line continue? Or should we just forget about the price completely?

Simple. The #1 heavyweight fights the #2 heavyweight and the winner is the new lineal champion.

[Ruthless-RKO]

Oké, but then how should the line continue? Or should we just forget about the price completely?

Simple. The #1 heavyweight fights the #2 heavyweight and the winner is the new lineal champion.

Yup! And a lot of respected rankings have Joshua and Wilder as the top 2.. whichever order doesn’t matter.

If Fury beats Wilder, then Fury vs. Joshua will be #1 vs. #2. No doubt.

[SteveO]

Yup! And a lot of respected rankings have Joshua and Wilder as the top 2.. whichever order doesn’t matter.

If Fury beats Wilder, then Fury vs. Joshua will be #1 vs. #2. No doubt.

Can't argue with that.
In the meantime though, Fury is the lineal champion - the honour he won from Wladimir Klitschko.