BoxRec

I read in a post earlier in this thread that Lewis beat Ruddock for the Commonwealth,i thought Razor was American,is he Canadian?

handsofstone wrote:I read in a post earlier in this thread that Lewis beat Ruddock for the Commonwealth,i thought Razor was American,is he Canadian?

Canadian, Jamaican

reggaereggae wrote:

handsofstone wrote:I read in a post earlier in this thread that Lewis beat Ruddock for the Commonwealth,i thought Razor was American,is he Canadian?

Canadian, Jamaican

Cheers Reggae

SNG wrote:

banjo wrote:Also there hasn't been a lineal champion for 12 years, Wlad has never been the undisputed champion.

Wladimir became lineal at some point surely? Either against Ibragimov or Chagaev.

What claim could Ibragimov or Chagaev have on the lineal crown? Second raters with nary a meaningful win betwixt them.

Wlad K was never undisputed nor lineal. He was never dominant either, unless you think dominant means 'there's a harder, better man simultaneously defending the WBC title but I absorb all his accomplishments'.

Tuan_Jim wrote:

SNG wrote:

banjo wrote:Also there hasn't been a lineal champion for 12 years, Wlad has never been the undisputed champion.

Wladimir became lineal at some point surely? Either against Ibragimov or Chagaev.

What claim could Ibragimov or Chagaev have on the lineal crown? Second raters with nary a meaningful win betwixt them.

Wlad K was never undisputed nor lineal. He was never dominant either, unless you think dominant means 'there's a harder, better man simultaneously defending the WBC title but I absorb all his accomplishments'.

What are you on about? Who ever said either were lineal champions? They both lost in their title fights with Klitschko, I had a look around and most credit the lineal title as being decided between Chagaev and Klitschko.

SNG wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:

SNG wrote:
Wladimir became lineal at some point surely? Either against Ibragimov or Chagaev.

What claim could Ibragimov or Chagaev have on the lineal crown? Second raters with nary a meaningful win betwixt them.

Wlad K was never undisputed nor lineal. He was never dominant either, unless you think dominant means 'there's a harder, better man simultaneously defending the WBC title but I absorb all his accomplishments'.

What are you on about? Who ever said either were lineal champions? They both lost in their title fights with Klitschko, I had a look around and most credit the lineal title as being decided between Chagaev and Klitschko.

The lineal, supposedly, was decided by Vitali K and Corrie Sanders, as horrific as that is to conjure with.

Vitali K was WBC champ in 2009. Anyone who claims Wlad K vs Chagaev was for the lineal title must be ignorant to boxing tradition.

Tuan_Jim wrote:
The lineal, supposedly, was decided by Vitali K and Corrie Sanders, as horrific as that is to conjure with.

Vitali K was WBC champ in 2009. Anyone who claims Wlad K vs Chagaev was for the lineal title must be ignorant to boxing tradition.

Don't be ridiculous. Vitali was retired for four years, the lineal title moves on or it never would have gone passed about 1905. Wlad was the lineal champion, and now is Tyson Fury, I don't really care what you think about that either.

SNG wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:
The lineal, supposedly, was decided by Vitali K and Corrie Sanders, as horrific as that is to conjure with.

Vitali K was WBC champ in 2009. Anyone who claims Wlad K vs Chagaev was for the lineal title must be ignorant to boxing tradition.

Don't be ridiculous. Vitali was retired for four years, the lineal title moves on or it never would have gone passed about 1905. Wlad was the lineal champion, and now is Tyson Fury, I don't really care what you think about that either.

Nope. Not if the champ comes out of retirement. See Johnson/Jeffries, Holmes/Ali, Louis/Charles et al. As I say, your stance is borne of ignorance.

Tuan_Jim wrote:

SNG wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:
The lineal, supposedly, was decided by Vitali K and Corrie Sanders, as horrific as that is to conjure with.

Vitali K was WBC champ in 2009. Anyone who claims Wlad K vs Chagaev was for the lineal title must be ignorant to boxing tradition.

Don't be ridiculous. Vitali was retired for four years, the lineal title moves on or it never would have gone passed about 1905. Wlad was the lineal champion, and now is Tyson Fury, I don't really care what you think about that either.

Nope. Not if the champ comes out of retirement. See Johnson/Jeffries, Holmes/Ali, Louis/Charles et al. As I say, your stance is borne of ignorance.

So Lewis comes out of retirement the claims you say Vitali has are nullified? Bollocks.

Either way, don't take it up with me, take it up with the many sites that track the line of the lineal title. Drop them an email, I'm sure they'll give as much of a fornicate about your opinion as I do.

Tuan_Jim wrote:

SNG wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:
The lineal, supposedly, was decided by Vitali K and Corrie Sanders, as horrific as that is to conjure with.

Vitali K was WBC champ in 2009. Anyone who claims Wlad K vs Chagaev was for the lineal title must be ignorant to boxing tradition.

Don't be ridiculous. Vitali was retired for four years, the lineal title moves on or it never would have gone passed about 1905. Wlad was the lineal champion, and now is Tyson Fury, I don't really care what you think about that either.

Nope. Not if the champ comes out of retirement. See Johnson/Jeffries, Holmes/Ali, Louis/Charles et al. As I say, your stance is borne of ignorance.

I think those guys just happened to have beaten a returning lineal champion by chance but the wins did not cement their stature as they were already considered the real champion going into the fights. Had any of those three wins not happened, Johnson, Holmes and Charles would still have claimed the lineal championship.

If not, you are saying that no one post Marciano was lineal champion and it died with Rocky. That means Ali, Foreman, Frazier, Tyson etc can not be considered lineal either.

Since Marciano...

Patterson > Johannson > Patterson > Liston > Ali > Frazier > Foreman > Ali > Leon Spinks > Ali > Holmes > Michael Spinks > Tyson > Douglas > Holyfield > Bowe > Holyfield > Moorer > Foreman > Briggs > Lewis > Rahman > Lewis > end.

Nobody has unified the division since.

Lewis ended as lineal, not undisputed.

Holyfield onwards were lineal but not undisputed. When did being undisputed become accepted criteria. Your own examples defeat your argument

Briggs did not even own a recognised alphabet title. I do not think owning pieces of garbage alphabet titles makes the lineal championship.

banjo wrote:Since Marciano...

Patterson > Johannson > Patterson > Liston > Ali > Frazier > Foreman > Ali > Leon Spinks > Ali > Holmes > Michael Spinks > Tyson > Douglas > Holyfield > Bowe > Holyfield > Moorer > Foreman > Briggs > Lewis > Rahman > Lewis > end.

Nobody has unified the division since.

You don't have to unify the division, we're talking lineal not undisputed. How can you even unify titles these days when organisations strip a fighter two weeks after he wins their title?

We could probably argue about this for days but I think we can all agree that by beating Wlad Tyson Fury is very much the man in the division right now.

Lewis was undisputed, he won the WBC/WBA/IBF and defeated the lineal champion and defeated the WBO champion but never held that belt due to some dispute between the WBC and WBO but yes Lewis beat everyone he needed to beat to become the undisputed heavyweight champion.

banjo wrote:Lewis was undisputed, he won the WBC/WBA/IBF and defeated the lineal champion and defeated the WBO champion but never held that belt due to some dispute between the WBC and WBO but yes Lewis beat everyone he needed to beat to become the undisputed heavyweight champion.

And Moorer/Foreman/Briggs/Bowe?

tobyh5 wrote:Lewis ended as lineal, not undisputed.

Holyfield onwards were lineal but not undisputed. When did being undisputed become accepted criteria. Your own examples defeat your argument

Briggs did not even own a recognised alphabet title. I do not think owning pieces of garbage alphabet titles makes the lineal championship.

Not true, because if it really came down to the old axiom "to be the man you have to beat the man" then the true lineal championship ended with Gene Tunney.... and everyone else since him has been a pretender to the crown... When Lewis retired, it came down to who held the most belts, and had the most defenses, to become the lineal champion... The same ordeal that Larry Holmes suffered while as champion, as he didn't hold all the belts (although one can say he won the lineal title when he defeated Ali, just like Jack Johnson won the lineal title from Jim Jeffries in his failed comeback).

tobyh5 wrote:

banjo wrote:Lewis was undisputed, he won the WBC/WBA/IBF and defeated the lineal champion and defeated the WBO champion but never held that belt due to some dispute between the WBC and WBO but yes Lewis beat everyone he needed to beat to become the undisputed heavyweight champion.

And Moorer/Foreman/Briggs/Bowe?

Bowe beat the undisputed champion Holyfield, after that yes the division became fragmented because Bowe binned the WBC belt then he lost to Holyfield, then Holyfield lost to Moorer who lost to Foreman who then vacated the WBA and IBF belts creating a situation in which several fighters held belts and claims to the world heavyweight championship and Lewis cleaned up.

Damn I forget about Gene.

I hang my head in shame.

I am not arguing the point by the way, just answering the daft posts with actual facts and not revealing my own thoughts.

Had I remembered that damn Tunney I would have used it.

So basically, on the arguments presented there have been no lineals since 1927 or on the other argument of owning all belts, Briggs, Moorer, Foreman never held the title. Nor Bowe or Holyfield or Douglas really as WBO was in existence

Who do you consider to be lineal then? Or did Lewis retire and it's yet to be decided.

SNG wrote:Who do you consider to be lineal then? Or did Lewis retire and it's yet to be decided.

Yet to be decided. Fury needs to beat Wilder.

banjo wrote:

SNG wrote:Who do you consider to be lineal then? Or did Lewis retire and it's yet to be decided.

Yet to be decided. Fury needs to beat Wilder.

So you'd ignore the eventual IBF champion, whoever it is?

SNG wrote:

banjo wrote:

SNG wrote:Who do you consider to be lineal then? Or did Lewis retire and it's yet to be decided.

Yet to be decided. Fury needs to beat Wilder.

So you'd ignore the eventual IBF champion, whoever it is?

Yep because Fury has just beaten the man who has held it for the last 10 years, WBO 7 years and WBA 5 years.

Well for me Wlad was lineal, even if you discount Chagaev he beat Povetkin after Vitali retired, who was the recognised number 2 at the time.

banjo wrote:Since Marciano...

Patterson > Johannson > Patterson > Liston > Ali > Frazier > Foreman > Ali > Leon Spinks > Ali > Holmes > Michael Spinks > Tyson > Douglas > Holyfield > Bowe > Holyfield > Moorer > Foreman > Briggs > Lewis > Rahman > Lewis > end.

Nobody has unified the division since.

This is it.

There were attempts to have Vitali vs Corrie Sanders recognised, some people did, it certainly suited the HBO and Ring mag agenda, and a certain mentality of boxing fan, but many couldn't accept it. Vitali, a loser vs Lewis, and Corrie, a fringe contender pushing 40, a man too many remembered all too clearly from his 90s performances, was too much to take.

There were attempts to do the same with Wlad K vs Chagaev and Haye, but again, too ridiculous - particularly if Vitali K was the lineal champ - because he was back and defending his title.

Nobody has unified the division since Lennox Lewis. Cry all you want, but read up on boxing history.