BoxRec

littlepug wrote:

bigman1968 wrote:

Naandrew wrote:Because after the David Haye win he was clearly the best at the weight.

So Haye was The Man??? Come on

he didnt say that, haye was probably the best and only contender around at that point

No, he wasn't, Povetkin was. Wladimir dominated over 10 years, he survived a whole generation. That's why he was the men and Fury became the men who beat the men.

gilgamesh wrote:

ikorolev wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:
Wilder didn't become relevant until the back end of his reign. Wladimir Klitschko had already established himself as THE Champion before Wilder was even in the Top 10

And as for not fighting his brother. It's ridiculous to have ever expected that of him.

I never expected him to, but then Wlad being the man was questionable.

Considering he beat significantly better fighters than his brother, I don't think so.

Comparing opposition is how rankings are built, not how you determine an undisputed to say nothing of lineal champion.

If we forgot history and started comparing opposition now, then Fury would be an undisputed champion which he isn't.

ikorolev wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

ikorolev wrote:
I never expected him to, but then Wlad being the man was questionable.

Considering he beat significantly better fighters than his brother, I don't think so.

Comparing opposition is how rankings are built, not how you determine an undisputed to say nothing of lineal champion.

Wlad became lineal Champion by cleaning out the division of the best fighters. Vitali was content defending his strap against guys that were barely Top 20.

Vitali is one of the only ranked fighters Wladimir didn't beat during his reign. Whereas a great deal of the Top 10 never faced Vitali.

gilgamesh wrote:

ikorolev wrote: Comparing opposition is how rankings are built, not how you determine an undisputed to say nothing of lineal champion.

Wlad became lineal Champion by cleaning out the division of the best fighters. Vitali was content defending his strap against guys that were barely Top 20.

Vitali is one of the only ranked fighters Wladimir didn't beat during his reign. Whereas a great deal of the Top 10 never faced Vitali.

Your statements excluding the "became lineal Champion" part are absolutely correct, but the point is that he hasn't beaten another champion who was better than almost anybody Wlad ever defeated, so Wlad couldn't be considered undisputed.

Lineal is archaic and irrelevant at this point. Just something historians cling to. It's simply another opinion.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Lineal is archaic and irrelevant at this point. Just something historians cling to. It's simply another opinion.

ikorolev wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

ikorolev wrote: Comparing opposition is how rankings are built, not how you determine an undisputed to say nothing of lineal champion.

Wlad became lineal Champion by cleaning out the division of the best fighters. Vitali was content defending his strap against guys that were barely Top 20.

Vitali is one of the only ranked fighters Wladimir didn't beat during his reign. Whereas a great deal of the Top 10 never faced Vitali.

Your statements excluding the "became lineal Champion" part are absolutely correct, but the point is that he hasn't beaten another champion who was better than almost anybody Wlad ever defeated, so Wlad couldn't be considered undisputed.

Wlad wasn't considered Undisputed at any point because the belts were fragmented, but he was The Recognized Champion, and now Tyson Fury is having beaten him.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Lineal is archaic and irrelevant at this point. Just something historians cling to. It's simply another opinion.

I totally agree. I would say that a real champion is one recognized by 90% of people. A good criteria would be being Ring, ESPN and boxrec #1 at the same time.

The Ring is Lineal.

By the time Wlad lost to Fury, it was completely impossible to consider anybody else the lineal HW champ. It's like asking why the Warriors should be considered the best basketball team.

BitPlayer wrote:The Ring is Lineal.

No it isn't. They usually would have the same answer, but not always.

squiggy wrote:By the time Wlad lost to Fury, it was completely impossible to consider anybody else the lineal HW champ. It's like asking why the Warriors should be considered the best basketball team.

Correct.

squiggy wrote:By the time Wlad lost to Fury, it was completely impossible to consider anybody else the lineal HW champ. It's like asking why the Warriors should be considered the best basketball team.

Many weight classes don't have lineal champs. HW didn't and doesn't have one.

The perfect indictment of how silly lineal is was when they anointed Casamayor the Lightweight champion for winning a Jr welterweight fight.

ikorolev wrote:

squiggy wrote:By the time Wlad lost to Fury, it was completely impossible to consider anybody else the lineal HW champ. It's like asking why the Warriors should be considered the best basketball team.

Many weight classes don't have lineal champs. HW didn't and doesn't have one.

By what rationale?

Lineage was interrupted when a lineal champion retired.

There is no such a thing as a "Lineal Champion".

There are two things that are similar, however:

"Ring Champion" - Obtained by beating the "Ring Champion" or fighting for the vacant "Ring Championship". The Ring Magazine has a rankings system. And if their title is vacant, and it so happens that their #1 ranked fighter fights the #2 ranked fighter, they usually make that fight to be for the "Ring Championship". They did that when Wlad (#1 ranked at the time) fough Chagaev (#2 ranked at the time). Wlad won the belt. Wlad recently lost to Fury. Fury is the current "The Ring" champion.


"Undisputed Champion" - When a fighter holds all four recognized belts (WBA, WBC, WBO, IBF).

klitoris wrote:There is no such a thing as a "Lineal Champion".

There are two things that are similar, however:

"Ring Champion" - Obtained by beating the "Ring Champion" or fighting for the vacant "Ring Championship". The Ring Magazine has a rankings system. And if their title is vacant, and it so happens that their #1 ranked fighter fights the #2 ranked fighter, they usually make that fight to be for the "Ring Championship". They did that when Wlad (#1 ranked at the time) fough Chagaev (#2 ranked at the time). Wlad won the belt. Wlad recently lost to Fury. Fury is the current "The Ring" champion.


"Undisputed Champion" - When a fighter holds all four recognized belts (WBA, WBC, WBO, IBF).

An undisputed champion starts a lineage. He may vacate some of his belts/get stripped for not defending, but he still remains a lineal champion until somebody beats him. A person who beats him becomes a new lineal champion and so on until lineage breaks. Two ways of becoming a lineal champion, beating one or starting a new lineage as an undisputed champion, theoretically allow existence of more than one lineal champion in the same weight class which is ridiculous.

Here is an interesting article on lineages:
http://www.arcaneknowledge.org/sports/linealprob.htm

bigman1968 wrote:Lewis retired at 2003!!! Eventually, Lewis's belts(WBC and IBO) went to Vitaly Klitchko.

You don't seem to understand how lineal championships work. It has nothing to do with where the retired champion's ABC trinkets end up. Also, Vitali didn't capture the IBO belt ever, that was Wlad, so you just made a major miscalculation. There are different opinions about the criteria to fill a vacant lineal title, but they generally involve a box-off of the best fighters, a fight between the top 2 fighters in the division, or potentially a fight between #1 and #3 if #1 and #2 are at an impasse and will not fight. Until one of those things happen, the lineal title would remain vacant. Vitali did not fight Chris Byrd in 2004, and therefore did not capture the lineal title at that time. There was a time after October 2007 when the forum's rankings had the top 4 heavyweights as Wlad, Peter, Chagaev, and Ibragimov; and of course Wlad eventually beat all 3 of the others. By the end of 2008, the top 4 heavyweights were Wlad, Vitali, Chagaev, and Povetkin; and of course Wlad eventually beat all of them except for Vitali, who he was at an impasse with. By the end of 2009, the top 6 heavyweights were Wlad, Vitali, Povetkin, Chambers, Chagaev, and Haye; and of course Wlad eventually beat all of them except for Vitali, who he was at an impasse with. By the end of 2010, the top 4 heavyweights were Wlad, Vitali, Haye, and Povetkin; and of course Wlad eventually beat all of them except for Vitali, who he was at an impasse with.

Anyways, the point is, Wlad was able to satisfy the criteria for filling a vacant lineal title many times when he a) won the box-off with Peter, Chagaev, and Ibragimov b) won the box-off with Chagaev and Povetkin c) won the box-off with Povetkin, Chambers, Chagaev, and Haye d) couldn't come to terms with the #2 but beat the #3 in Haye e) couldn't come to terms with the #2 but beat the #3 in Povetkin f) won the box-off with Haye and Povetkin.

Lackeos wrote:

bigman1968 wrote:Lewis retired at 2003!!! Eventually, Lewis's belts(WBC and IBO) went to Vitaly Klitchko.

You don't seem to understand how lineal championships work. It has nothing to do with where the retired champion's ABC trinkets end up. Also, Vitali didn't capture the IBO belt ever, that was Wlad, so you just made a major miscalculation. There are different opinions about the criteria to fill a vacant lineal title, but they generally involve a box-off of the best fighters, a fight between the top 2 fighters in the division, or potentially a fight between #1 and #3 if #1 and #2 are at an impasse and will not fight. Until one of those things happen, the lineal title would remain vacant. Vitali did not fight Chris Byrd in 2004, and therefore did not capture the lineal title at that time. There was a time after October 2007 when the forum's rankings had the top 4 heavyweights as Wlad, Peter, Chagaev, and Ibragimov; and of course Wlad eventually beat all 3 of the others. By the end of 2008, the top 4 heavyweights were Wlad, Vitali, Chagaev, and Povetkin; and of course Wlad eventually beat all of them except for Vitali, who he was at an impasse with. By the end of 2009, the top 6 heavyweights were Wlad, Vitali, Povetkin, Chambers, Chagaev, and Haye; and of course Wlad eventually beat all of them except for Vitali, who he was at an impasse with. By the end of 2010, the top 4 heavyweights were Wlad, Vitali, Haye, and Povetkin; and of course Wlad eventually beat all of them except for Vitali, who he was at an impasse with.

Anyways, the point is, Wlad was able to satisfy the criteria for filling a vacant lineal title many times when he a) won the box-off with Peter, Chagaev, and Ibragimov b) won the box-off Chagaev and Povetkin c) won the box-off with Povetkin, Chambers, Chagaev, and Haye d) couldn't come to terms with the #2 but beat the #3 in Haye e) couldn't come to terms with the #2 but beat the #3 in Povetkin f) won the box-off with Haye and Povetkin.

And boom goes the dynamite. Well said, as usual.

Technically the linear title ended with Jefferies..... however, upon his comeback, he lost to Jack Johnson..... so the title passed on until Gene Tunney retired.... and effectively it ends there..... as Gene never did come back and lose the crown to someone else.... When Joe Louis retired, Ezzard Charles won recognition as champion, but didn't become the "linear" champion until he defeated Joe Louis (who made a comeback).... Fast forward to Larry Holmes, he won the "linear" title from Ali (who had retired two years earlier).... Lennox Lewis retired, never came back (and never will) so since him the "linear" championship has been decided upon who won the most belts and Klitschko (Vladimir) upon defeating Chagaev became the linear champion as he essentially unified all the belts but the WBC strap which his brother held.