BoxRec

tonyevs wrote: ↑04 May 2022, 00:54 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.

mickey1975 wrote: ↑04 May 2022, 01:59

tonyevs wrote: ↑04 May 2022, 00:54 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 wrote: ↑04 May 2022, 01:15

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote: ↑03 May 2022, 22:50

maverick23 wrote: ↑30 Apr 2022, 08:15

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.

gregregegg wrote: ↑04 May 2022, 01:46

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote: ↑03 May 2022, 22:50

maverick23 wrote: ↑30 Apr 2022, 08:15

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.

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑04 May 2022, 02:43 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 wrote: ↑04 May 2022, 15:21

maverick23 wrote: ↑04 May 2022, 01:15

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote: ↑03 May 2022, 22:50

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

maverick23 wrote: ↑04 May 2022, 15:58

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote: ↑04 May 2022, 15:21

maverick23 wrote: ↑04 May 2022, 01:15

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.

Blueprint wrote: ↑29 Apr 2022, 10:22 if fury retires, it looks like Eddie hearn will petition WBC for the vacant belt.

Usyk vs Joshua 2 could be for undisputed.

Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑04 May 2022, 16:05

maverick23 wrote: ↑04 May 2022, 15:58

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote: ↑04 May 2022, 15:21

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.

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote: ↑04 May 2022, 15:34

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑04 May 2022, 02:43 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.

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote: ↑04 May 2022, 15:25

gregregegg wrote: ↑04 May 2022, 01:46

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote: ↑03 May 2022, 22:50

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.

Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑04 May 2022, 20:07 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?

maverick23 wrote: ↑04 May 2022, 15:58

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote: ↑04 May 2022, 15:21

maverick23 wrote: ↑04 May 2022, 01:15

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.

gregregegg wrote: ↑04 May 2022, 20:40

Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑04 May 2022, 20:07 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.

mickey1975 wrote: ↑05 May 2022, 04:17 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.

Cyclops wrote: ↑04 May 2022, 16:20

Blueprint wrote: ↑29 Apr 2022, 10:22 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.