Eddie hearn to petition WBC for vacant belt- Usyk - Joshua 2 undisputed

[handsofstone]

What a crap way for anyone to become undisputed.
Imagine if Joshua got given a gift.

Wouldn't be ideal, can't see Fury retiring for good but whether it's long enough before he gets stripped, probably but I'd have no qualms with Usyk/Joshua picking it up, at least it sews up the division for now if it was to happen

I think Fury lost the IBF title 3 days after winning it! In reality AJ never won any of his belts from champions.
It would be poetic if he won the undisputed in the same way.

With multiple belts most divisions are the same tbf but for some reason most emphasis gets put on Heavyweight division, same with all this lineal pish, it's only ever in the heavyweight division people mention it

[Delta Jay]

If Fury retires I’ll pay my TV License for once.

Feel free to finish this sentence with me;

“If Fury retires I’ll…”

Don’t be admitting things like that on here..

Dangerous.

[tonyevs]

It's a shame things always get distorted and intentionally misinterpreted by the same couple people on here.

Nobody is suggesting Fury gets stripped of his titles - merely for him to give clarification, and then either way keep the titles active. If he is retiring then allow another person to fight for it; if not intending fighting for 12mths then clarification so others can focus on a different route

[bigjack]

Boxing has to be the most frustrating sport around,so many deserving contenders will never get a chance when we have situations like this,belts being held to ransom for years,it's not just Fury either,it happens all the time

[handsofstone]

It's a shame things always get distorted and intentionally misinterpreted by the same couple people on here.

Nobody is suggesting Fury gets stripped of his titles - merely for him to give clarification, and then either way keep the titles active. If he is retiring then allow another person to fight for it; if not intending fighting for 12mths then clarification so others can focus on a different route

Correct

[DrDuke]

The Gypsy King should abandon his retirement idea. He'll obviously be eager to meet the Usyk-Joshua winner. It'll be very hard for him to organize this bout without having a belt.

[Coco]

He would still have the emirate and in recess belts

[mickey1975]

He would still have the emirate and in recess belts

You forgot lineal.

[maverick23]

He would still have the emirate and in recess belts

You forgot lineal.

I thought Lennox still had that?

[DrDuke]

He would still have the emirate and in recess belts

You forgot lineal.

Lineal isn't that important, it's only symbolic, while sanctioning bodies of the abc-belts matter financially.

[maverick23]

He would still have the emirate and in recess belts

You forgot lineal.

Lineal isn't that important, it's only symbolic, while sanctioning bodies of the abc-belts matter financially.

I never get the lineal stuff. Whilst Wlad was in the bulk of peoples eyes the number 1 there was always another guy who held the WBC, including his brother. So who did Wlad beat to become lineal? Or who decided he was the lineal champ?

[DrDuke]

You forgot lineal.

Lineal isn't that important, it's only symbolic, while sanctioning bodies of the abc-belts matter financially.

I never get the lineal stuff. Whilst Wlad was in the bulk of peoples eyes the number 1 there was always another guy who held the WBC, including his brother. So who did Wlad beat to become lineal? Or who decided he was the lineal champ?

Well, lil' Klit has a much better resume than the big one. Only look at their best wins.

Lil': Povetkin, Byrd, Haye, Pulev, Chagaev, Rahman, Ibragimov, Brewster, Peter.

Big: Sanders, Chisora, Peter, Arreola, Adamek, Briggs.

[maverick23]

Lineal isn't that important, it's only symbolic, while sanctioning bodies of the abc-belts matter financially.

I never get the lineal stuff. Whilst Wlad was in the bulk of peoples eyes the number 1 there was always another guy who held the WBC, including his brother. So who did Wlad beat to become lineal? Or who decided he was the lineal champ?

Well, lil' Klit has a much better resume than the big one. Only look at their best wins.

Lil': Povetkin, Byrd, Haye, Pulev, Chagaev, Rahman, Ibragimov, Brewster, Peter.

Big: Sanders, Chisora, Peter, Arreola, Adamek, Briggs.

Yeah - I get it. He almost certainly was the best in the world. But who and at what point was it decided that he was the lineal champ?

[DrDuke]

I never get the lineal stuff. Whilst Wlad was in the bulk of peoples eyes the number 1 there was always another guy who held the WBC, including his brother. So who did Wlad beat to become lineal? Or who decided he was the lineal champ?

Well, lil' Klit has a much better resume than the big one. Only look at their best wins.

Lil': Povetkin, Byrd, Haye, Pulev, Chagaev, Rahman, Ibragimov, Brewster, Peter.

Big: Sanders, Chisora, Peter, Arreola, Adamek, Briggs.

Yeah - I get it. He almost certainly was the best in the world. But who and at what point was it decided that he was the lineal champ?

As far as I remember, in late 2000s and early 2010s the boxing community was simply taking that era as a hegemony of the two brothers. But with Fury's time-off after the win over Klit and Joshua's gathering of the abc-belts people started to talk more about who's the true champ, so the lineal stuff somehow got more important in the boxing community. Everyone seemed to recognize exactly lil' Klit as a lineal champ, since he lasted more than the big one, defeated the better opposition ad gathered more belts. I agree with it pretty much.

[Ruthless-RKO]

Some say he claimed linealship when he beat Chagaev, some say it was when he beat Pocetkin.

For many many years, the Ring belt was kinda linked to the Lineal, until Fury for stripped.

I guess it’s when majority of the ranking bodies including Ring/ESPN etc. had them at #1 and #2.

It’s all subjective though ain’t it?

[maverick23]

Well, lil' Klit has a much better resume than the big one. Only look at their best wins.

Lil': Povetkin, Byrd, Haye, Pulev, Chagaev, Rahman, Ibragimov, Brewster, Peter.

Big: Sanders, Chisora, Peter, Arreola, Adamek, Briggs.

Yeah - I get it. He almost certainly was the best in the world. But who and at what point was it decided that he was the lineal champ?

As far as I remember, in late 2000s and early 2010s the boxing community was simply taking that era as a hegemony of the two brothers. But with Fury's time-off after the win over Klit and Joshua's gathering of the abc-belts people started to talk more about who's the true champ, so the lineal stuff somehow got more important in the boxing community. Everyone seemed to recognize exactly lil' Klit as a lineal champ, since he lasted more than the big one, defeated the better opposition ad gathered more belts. I agree with it pretty much.

I agree that Wlad was almost certainly the best heavyweight in the world. I just don’t get the lineal stuff. I don’t ever remember seeing Wlad refer to himself as the lineal champ or anyone else really call him that.

[handsofstone]

If Fury was to retire then the last thing the division needs is a Bryan/Dubois type fight for vacant belt to further muddy the waters, I know its a different org but you get the jist, Usyk has to fight for belt if he beats Joshua again, preferably against Wilder or maybe even Ruiz if he beats Ortiz

[Ruthless-RKO]

If Fury was to retire then the last thing the division needs is a Bryan/Dubois type fight for vacant belt to further muddy the waters, I know its a different org but you get the jist, Usyk has to fight for belt if he beats Joshua again, preferably against Wilder or maybe even Ruiz if he beats Ortiz

We’d probably get a transitional champion for a bit.

[daz74]

Maverick, I’m with you on the lineal debate
Dr Duke, real nice post, agree with your recollection of how it played out

Have Joyce/Parker done enough to warrant a shot at the WBC belt ?

It won’t happen, but I wouldn’t have a problem with AJ/Usyk fighting for all the belts, and all the contenders can line up and fight each other to jostle for position.

In my eyes, the WBO belt will always be 4th best

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

Yeah - I get it. He almost certainly was the best in the world. But who and at what point was it decided that he was the lineal champ?

As far as I remember, in late 2000s and early 2010s the boxing community was simply taking that era as a hegemony of the two brothers. But with Fury's time-off after the win over Klit and Joshua's gathering of the abc-belts people started to talk more about who's the true champ, so the lineal stuff somehow got more important in the boxing community. Everyone seemed to recognize exactly lil' Klit as a lineal champ, since he lasted more than the big one, defeated the better opposition ad gathered more belts. I agree with it pretty much.

I agree that Wlad was almost certainly the best heavyweight in the world. I just don’t get the lineal stuff. I don’t ever remember seeing Wlad refer to himself as the lineal champ or anyone else really call him that.

Lineal is established when 1 and 2 in the division fight each other. It's then 'the man who beat the man, who beat the man, who beat the man'. Ie a lineal path. The man who holds this distinction always has a claim to be number 1 if he doesn't lose that claim in the ring, so significantly:

1. Muhammed Ali was stripped of all his titles and never lost them in the ring. He was still the lineal champion. Joe Frazier held the titles but wasn't legit until he beat Ali

2. Larry Holmes earned the Lineal number 1 mack daddy status by beating either Norton or Ali (I'm not totally sure, 1 of them though). There were other belt holders but Larry was seen as the rightful king even though he avoided some fights and some rematches.

3. Spinks became the king after beating Holmes and despite having no belts, Mike Tyson was not seen as rightfully number 1 despite having the WBC, WBA and IBF until he beat Spinks. At the time many favoured Spinks

4. Jim Jeffries avoided Jack Johnson and retired. He never lost the titles in the ring though. So it's arguably whether he was lineal when he came back to finally take on Johnson who had cleared out the division. But it was a huge fight between 2 men who could claim to be number 1

5. Fury claims like Muhammed Ali he was wrongly stripped of the titles and he is the lineal champ and the man who beat the man to earn it. Fury also couldn't box for a period because of accusations of PED use.

[margaret thatcher]

lineal!!! fury!

fury! lineal!

[tonyevs]

It's all subjective. Fury has as much right to call himself the lineal champion as Usyk. I guess the difference is Fury and the casuals mention it so often it's taken as fact.

Hopefully the more Eddie pushes this the clearer we'll see Fury's intention.

[maverick23]

As far as I remember, in late 2000s and early 2010s the boxing community was simply taking that era as a hegemony of the two brothers. But with Fury's time-off after the win over Klit and Joshua's gathering of the abc-belts people started to talk more about who's the true champ, so the lineal stuff somehow got more important in the boxing community. Everyone seemed to recognize exactly lil' Klit as a lineal champ, since he lasted more than the big one, defeated the better opposition ad gathered more belts. I agree with it pretty much.

I agree that Wlad was almost certainly the best heavyweight in the world. I just don’t get the lineal stuff. I don’t ever remember seeing Wlad refer to himself as the lineal champ or anyone else really call him that.

Lineal is established when 1 and 2 in the division fight each other. It's then 'the man who beat the man, who beat the man, who beat the man'. Ie a lineal path. The man who holds this distinction always has a claim to be number 1 if he doesn't lose that claim in the ring, so significantly:

1. Muhammed Ali was stripped of all his titles and never lost them in the ring. He was still the lineal champion. Joe Frazier held the titles but wasn't legit until he beat Ali

2. Larry Holmes earned the Lineal number 1 mack daddy status by beating either Norton or Ali (I'm not totally sure, 1 of them though). There were other belt holders but Larry was seen as the rightful king even though he avoided some fights and some rematches.

3. Spinks became the king after beating Holmes and despite having no belts, Mike Tyson was not seen as rightfully number 1 despite having the WBC, WBA and IBF until he beat Spinks. At the time many favoured Spinks

4. Jim Jeffries avoided Jack Johnson and retired. He never lost the titles in the ring though. So it's arguably whether he was lineal when he came back to finally take on Johnson who had cleared out the division. But it was a huge fight between 2 men who could claim to be number 1

5. Fury claims like Muhammed Ali he was wrongly stripped of the titles and he is the lineal champ and the man who beat the man to earn it. Fury also couldn't box for a period because of accusations of PED use.

I get what lineal should mean and I understand the history too. I just don’t get when Wlad was ‘made’ lineal for Fury to win it from him.

[KiwiRider]

He would still have the emirate and in recess belts

You forgot lineal.

Lineal isn't that important, it's only symbolic, while sanctioning bodies of the abc-belts matter financially.

Lineal is the only one that is free.

[gregregegg]

As far as I remember, in late 2000s and early 2010s the boxing community was simply taking that era as a hegemony of the two brothers. But with Fury's time-off after the win over Klit and Joshua's gathering of the abc-belts people started to talk more about who's the true champ, so the lineal stuff somehow got more important in the boxing community. Everyone seemed to recognize exactly lil' Klit as a lineal champ, since he lasted more than the big one, defeated the better opposition ad gathered more belts. I agree with it pretty much.

I agree that Wlad was almost certainly the best heavyweight in the world. I just don’t get the lineal stuff. I don’t ever remember seeing Wlad refer to himself as the lineal champ or anyone else really call him that.

Lineal is established when 1 and 2 in the division fight each other. It's then 'the man who beat the man, who beat the man, who beat the man'. Ie a lineal path. The man who holds this distinction always has a claim to be number 1 if he doesn't lose that claim in the ring, so significantly:

You seem to know a lot about this so,

Who defines 1 and 2?

When did Wlad win lineal?;

Do you lose lineal if you retire?

Do you lose lineal if you test positive for peds?

Cheers.