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

[mickey1975]

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.

I guess I'm a casual then, Tony....
When Haye won the WBA didn't everyone say he had to beat Wlad to be the champ? Why, if they were equal belt holders?

[maverick23]

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.

I guess I'm a casual then, Tony....
When Haye won the WBA didn't everyone say he had to beat Wlad to be the champ? Why, if they were equal belt holders?

Wlad was in the middle of good winning run and had 2 of the other belts. He probably was the best heavyweight at that point. I don’t remember many people saying ‘he’s got to beat Wlad to be the champ’ because the vast bulk of people called Haye a world champion which he was. No one was saying he had to fight Wlad to be lineal.

I’m pretty sure Vitali was the WBC champ at the time so I’d imagine most people would agree that Wlad vs Haye wasn’t even perceived number 1 vs number 2.

[margaret thatcher]

hardly anyone talked about lineal until fury's fans started to make a huge deal out of it. probably because he lost his belts and they needed something to cling onto, fury + lineal has been mentioned about 50000x more than any other fighters lineal status (same goes for his ring magazine champ status). cue cp rage!

and if a guy is still lineal when he retires, well then the last hw lineal champ was way before fury!

[mickey1975]

Nobody needed anything to cling on to! It was obvious he was the best all along.

[margaret thatcher]

Fury fans obviously feel the need, maybe a bit insecure when other guys have titles. no other boxer gets 1/1000th the amount of mentions of their lineal titles or standing with a magazine

the stuff about him still being a reigning champ even if retired is pretty good, well then what about all the retired champs before him, the first one never gave it up

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

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.

Yes, well I don't remember a moment myself but there's plenty of evidence for it:

1. Wlad v Byrd as 1 and 2 when Vitali was innactive
2. Wald v Chagaev as 1 and 2 when Vitali was facing lower opposition and arguably down the totun poll
3. Wlad v Povetkin as 1 and 2 when Vitali had retired

Wlad was clearly number 1 and lineal after clearing the division of all major rivals, ie Povetkin, Chagaev, Haye and Vitali retiring

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

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.

Typically 1 and 2 is defined by governing bodies or more recently by Ring Magazine as they are seen as less corrupt

Wlad won lineal status off either Byrd, Chagaev or Povetkin. If he didn't win it against the first 2, Povetkin and Wlad were undisputed 1 and 2 when they fought

You arguably lose lineal if you retire, but it's arguable. Ali and Jeffries were both seen as 'the man'. Fury was banned and could not fight so technically did not retire post Wlad

As for PEDs that's a modern discussion that can't really be related to a lineal status that has no governing body.

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

Fury fans obviously feel the need, maybe a bit insecure when other guys have titles. no other boxer gets 1/1000th the amount of mentions of their lineal titles or standing with a magazine

the stuff about him still being a reigning champ even if retired is pretty good, well then what about all the retired champs before him, the first one never gave it up

You sound new to boxing history

Larry Holmes only ever held 1 HW belt, even dumped 1 of the 2 major belts to pick up a new made up belt. He was still numero uno because he was lineal champ

Tyson won all the belts but was not the HW man of the divsion until he beat the lineal champion

Hamed dumped all belts and it didn't mean anything because he was numero uno, aka lineal.

On beating Hamed, MAB dumped all belts and competed under the lineal and ring magazine champion and was seen as number 1

Roy Jones got knocked at 175 for never being lineal and never facing the lineal belt holder despite winning 3 belts

Hatton beatin Tyszu meant something huge, not because of the IBF belt but because Tyszu was unified lineal champion.

[maverick23]

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.

Yes, well I don't remember a moment myself but there's plenty of evidence for it:

1. Wlad v Byrd as 1 and 2 when Vitali was innactive
2. Wald v Chagaev as 1 and 2 when Vitali was facing lower opposition and arguably down the totun poll
3. Wlad v Povetkin as 1 and 2 when Vitali had retired

Wlad was clearly number 1 and lineal after clearing the division of all major rivals, ie Povetkin, Chagaev, Haye and Vitali retiring

I agree that in the vast majority of (and my) opinions Wlad was the number 1 heavyweight before he lost to Fury.

I think he was what he was though. An excellent unified champion. The fact that no one can pin point when he was made ‘lineal’ champ shows how stupid the concept is in modern day boxing.

I’m not taking anything away from Tyson. It was a great win against Wlad. One of the best ever by a Brit fighting abroad.

[Ruthless-RKO]

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.

Yes, well I don't remember a moment myself but there's plenty of evidence for it:

1. Wlad v Byrd as 1 and 2 when Vitali was innactive
2. Wald v Chagaev as 1 and 2 when Vitali was facing lower opposition and arguably down the totun poll
3. Wlad v Povetkin as 1 and 2 when Vitali had retired

Wlad was clearly number 1 and lineal after clearing the division of all major rivals, ie Povetkin, Chagaev, Haye and Vitali retiring

I agree that in the vast majority of (and my) opinions Wlad was the number 1 heavyweight before he lost to Fury.

I think he was what he was though. An excellent unified champion. The fact that no one can pin point when he was made ‘lineal’ champ shows how stupid the concept is in modern day boxing.

I’m not taking anything away from Tyson. It was a great win against Wlad. One of the best ever by a Brit fighting abroad.

Tbh.. from the 3 fights mentioned. Take your pick.

I think it was the Chagaev where he picked up the Ring and The lineal was always mostly linked to the Ring.

Either way, by the time he beat Povetkin, Wlad was lineal.

[Cyclops]

if fury retires, it looks like Eddie hearn will petition WBC for the vacant belt.

Usyk vs Joshua 2 could be for undisputed.

Good.

Let him 'retire' and make Usyk vs AJ for the undisputed. Whoever wins still knows who the man to beat is, so the fight with the 'Final Boss' Fury will still be for all the marbles.

God forbid he retires and there's a fight for the vacant WBC between Deontay Wilder and some PBC bum. I'd much rather Hearn keeps the titles together if Fury wants to piss around.

[maverick23]

Yes, well I don't remember a moment myself but there's plenty of evidence for it:

1. Wlad v Byrd as 1 and 2 when Vitali was innactive
2. Wald v Chagaev as 1 and 2 when Vitali was facing lower opposition and arguably down the totun poll
3. Wlad v Povetkin as 1 and 2 when Vitali had retired

Wlad was clearly number 1 and lineal after clearing the division of all major rivals, ie Povetkin, Chagaev, Haye and Vitali retiring

I agree that in the vast majority of (and my) opinions Wlad was the number 1 heavyweight before he lost to Fury.

I think he was what he was though. An excellent unified champion. The fact that no one can pin point when he was made ‘lineal’ champ shows how stupid the concept is in modern day boxing.

I’m not taking anything away from Tyson. It was a great win against Wlad. One of the best ever by a Brit fighting abroad.

Tbh.. from the 3 fights mentioned. Take your pick.

I think it was the Chagaev where he picked up the Ring and The lineal was always mostly linked to the Ring.

Either way, by the time he beat Povetkin, Wlad was lineal.

That’s based on your opinion though. Who decided lineal and the ring are linked? One has rankings, is seemingly fair and is a great achievement for a fighter. The other is fiction.

[margaret thatcher]

Fury fans obviously feel the need, maybe a bit insecure when other guys have titles. no other boxer gets 1/1000th the amount of mentions of their lineal titles or standing with a magazine

the stuff about him still being a reigning champ even if retired is pretty good, well then what about all the retired champs before him, the first one never gave it up

You sound new to boxing history

Larry Holmes only ever held 1 HW belt, even dumped 1 of the 2 major belts to pick up a new made up belt. He was still numero uno because he was lineal champ

Tyson won all the belts but was not the HW man of the divsion until he beat the lineal champion

Hamed dumped all belts and it didn't mean anything because he was numero uno, aka lineal.

On beating Hamed, MAB dumped all belts and competed under the lineal and ring magazine champion and was seen as number 1

Roy Jones got knocked at 175 for never being lineal and never facing the lineal belt holder despite winning 3 belts

Hatton beatin Tyszu meant something huge, not because of the IBF belt but because Tyszu was unified lineal champion.

thanks captain obvious, im well aware of the titles those guys won

[gregregegg]

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.

Typically 1 and 2 is defined by governing bodies or more recently by Ring Magazine as they are seen as less corrupt

Wlad won lineal status off either Byrd, Chagaev or Povetkin. If he didn't win it against the first 2, Povetkin and Wlad were undisputed 1 and 2 when they fought

You arguably lose lineal if you retire, but it's arguable. Ali and Jeffries were both seen as 'the man'. Fury was banned and could not fight so technically did not retire post Wlad

As for PEDs that's a modern discussion that can't really be related to a lineal status that has no governing body.

Gov bodys 1 and 2 how do you decide which ones? , and the ring is owned by goldenboy isnt it? clearly too bias.but..

-suggesting its possable he won it of byrd? Wlad was 8th with ring mag at that point.... so clearly not.

-vs Chagaev in 2009, well in 2009 vlad and vitali were 1 and 2. not chagaev.

-When wlad beat pov that was not the undisptued 1 and 2. Vitaly and vlad were still 1 and 2, Vitaly had not retired yet. Pov vs vlad was oct 2013... vitaly retired december 2013.

-He might of won it vs pulev though... bermain was WBC champ, but im comfortable saying pulev was better...

The fact that your 3 suggestions of when it could of been won dont seem to fit your definition is nothing against you, it just shows how dumb the idea of a linial belt is. Just recognise whos the best, dont try give them some metaphorical belt with rules....

Side note, Fury retired and was not at the time banned. he then took a backdated ban that filled his retirement. but at the time fury retired he was not banned. (mabey he was running from a ban, mabey not but he retired).

I know the belt is make-belive, but i just cant imagine even a made up belt where you dont have to drop it while your banned because of drugs.

[Ruthless-RKO]

The ring allow any two od the top 3 to fight each other for the Vacant ring belt.

At some stage they changed it to any two of the top 5, but I believe they reverted back to top 3.

So if Chagaev was #3 then there’s the answer.

Everyone and their mom knew Wlad and Vitali were never gonna fight each other.

Wlad also had fought the much better opposition.

Vitali’s reign wasn’t really the best was it?

[gregregegg]

The ring allow any two od the top 3 to fight each other for the Vacant ring belt.

At some stage they changed it to any two of the top 5, but I believe they reverted back to top 3.

So if Chagaev was #3 then there’s the answer.

Everyone and their mom knew Wlad and Vitali were never gonna fight each other.

Wlad also had fought the much better opposition.

Vitali’s reign wasn’t really the best was it?

We are talking about lineal not the ring title.

[Dioufy]

I’m a huge Fury fan but it’s hard to call him the lineal champion when another fighter has 3 belts.

To me, you don’t win/lose the lineal status in the ring all the time. It can be taken away when a new fighter emerges.

He is ring champ tho… which is better imo.

[coneye]

Theres 4 belts worth mentioning he owns 1 , someone else owns 3 ,,, so that means the someone else is 3/4 champ Tyson is 1/4 champ simple ,, stuff the lineal , and all the other make believe bollocks ,

He wants to claim he's the best , simple go fight and beat the guy with 3 belts ,, only thing he's really the best at is sprouting bollocks and bullshit ,, he's a drug cheat who's beat 2 top 5 guys and handpicked the rest

[Finkel]

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.

Yes, well I don't remember a moment myself but there's plenty of evidence for it:

1. Wlad v Byrd as 1 and 2 when Vitali was innactive
2. Wald v Chagaev as 1 and 2 when Vitali was facing lower opposition and arguably down the totun poll
3. Wlad v Povetkin as 1 and 2 when Vitali had retired

Wlad was clearly number 1 and lineal after clearing the division of all major rivals, ie Povetkin, Chagaev, Haye and Vitali retiring

I agree that in the vast majority of (and my) opinions Wlad was the number 1 heavyweight before he lost to Fury.

I think he was what he was though. An excellent unified champion. The fact that no one can pin point when he was made ‘lineal’ champ shows how stupid the concept is in modern day boxing.

I’m not taking anything away from Tyson. It was a great win against Wlad. One of the best ever by a Brit fighting abroad.

According to the Ring it was when Wlad #1 fought Chagaev #3. Vitali was #2.

However, back in 2004, following Lewis' retirement, the Ring put their belt on the line for Vitali #1 v Sanders #3. Resultantly Vitali became the Ring champion. But no one seems to recognize that as Vitali becoming the lineal champion.

Regarding the Ring and retirements:

Lennox Lewis announced his retirement in January 2004.
Vitali becomes the Ring champion in April 2004.

Vitali Klitschko announced his retirement in November 2005.
The Rings' annual ratings for 2005 (April 2006)? - The Championship was already vacant.

Wlad Klitschko #1 fights Chagaev #3 for the the Ring title in June 2009.

Tyson Fury beats Wlad Klitschko (champion) for the Ring title in Novermber 2015.

Tyson Fury announced his retirement in October 2016.
Other orgs like TBRB, stripped Fury of their championship upon retirement.
the Ring did not actually strip him until February 2018?!

This is all to say, I don't think the Ring are very reliable when it comes to their championship.

Then there is the TBRB they make claim to the lineal champ too. They say Wlad #1 v Povetkin #2 made Wlad the lineal champ. However, when their title was vacant, they ignored Joshua (their #1) against Wlad, but the ranking straight after they fought had Joshua #1 and Klitschko #2.

It seems who is and who isn't lineal is a messy/political business...

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

[Ruthless-RKO]

The ring allow any two od the top 3 to fight each other for the Vacant ring belt.

At some stage they changed it to any two of the top 5, but I believe they reverted back to top 3.

So if Chagaev was #3 then there’s the answer.

Everyone and their mom knew Wlad and Vitali were never gonna fight each other.

Wlad also had fought the much better opposition.

Vitali’s reign wasn’t really the best was it?

We are talking about lineal not the ring title.

I know. This was in response to Nutrion man who brought up the Lineal.

[mickey1975]

Why does nobody ever pull Hearn up when going through his tiresome resume speech without saying he lost two?
It's like having Tony Booth saying he had the most wins in Britain and not mentioning the losses.

[margaret thatcher]

ya, got some losses, also stopped fury's #1 and #3 guys and has deeper wins at hw than anyone boxing atm. obviously fury ranks ahead of joshua now so not sure what the deal would be there anyway, joshua ranking above him isnt really a debate happening

if fury retires usyk and josh will be the consensus #1 and #2 though..... even the much loved by fury fans ring magazine has them as the next best guys.


lets hope its all nonsense and fury vs the winner does happen in timely fashion, we should all want that more than fury retiring and more than usyk-aj 2 for whatever titles

[Ruthless-RKO]

Why does nobody ever pull Hearn up when going through his tiresome resume speech without saying he lost two?
It's like having Tony Booth saying he had the most wins in Britain and not mentioning the losses.

It’s like I’m finance, stocks, etc.

You only talk about your profits, never your losses.

[splashitallover]

Fury has won all the belts and whilst he didnt win them all at in one hit, he is the lineal champion. I dont think fighting for belts motivates him anymore. My guess is that if the money is high enough, he will fight again.......thats his only motivation.

[KiwiRider]

if fury retires, it looks like Eddie hearn will petition WBC for the vacant belt.

Usyk vs Joshua 2 could be for undisputed.

Good.

Let him 'retire' and make Usyk vs AJ for the undisputed. Whoever wins still knows who the man to beat is, so the fight with the 'Final Boss' Fury will still be for all the marbles.

God forbid he retires and there's a fight for the vacant WBC between Deontay Wilder and some PBC bum. I'd much rather Hearn keeps the titles together if Fury wants to piss around.

Oh crikey!
I didn't even think about that possibility. P B C still have sway with the WBC. But being a greedy org, the WBC will bow to whoever is going to give them the biggest bang for their %. And that appears to be with the winner of Uysk AJ because PBC haven't developed a HW, and the mystique of Wilder is long gone now. I think he is no longer to be considered as a player in the division.