Lineal explained by someone who actually knows.

No, I'm saying that by your standards he appears to have ceased being lineal - "as long as he's legally able to box" - and then become lineal again.

He was retrospectively banned for drug use, retired, AND was declared medically unfit to box.

If i'm reading you right you're saying that being banned, retiring and being declared medically unfit for the ring, none of these things prevent a fighter being lineal.

OK. That's your perspective. It is NOT a widely shared one and it is NOT supported by history.

There was some confusion a few years back about lineal v linear. Linear seems to be what you are describing. That's fine, and if you want to chose to call it "lineal", that's fine...but it also means that if Lennox Lewis comes back tomorrow, Wladimir was never champion. Fury was never champion. And no new champion can be crowned. All that bars this is a licence and a fight with some bum.

It just doesn't make any sense i'm afraid.

 

Right, otherwise you end up with all kinds of madness. Bantamweight champions coming back as super-bantamweights, weighing in for a single bantamweight contest and supposedly defending their lineal crown, despite a claim made in the intervening 5 years. Doesn't happen, nobody sees it that way.

Ali coming back and Frazier "ceasing" to be champion, doesn't happen, nobody sees it that way.

It also makes tracing the true lineage in a given era impossible; until that fighter is LITERALLY dead, you can't have a new lineage

Don't we have a problem if Fury comes back and fights Tom Little and loses in three years time? Because a cocaine addicted Fury came back and quit after two rounds? Joshua (Assuming by then lineal), his claim evaporates in favour of... Tom Little?

Nope. Fighters claims in the ring need to be honoured, but if they're inactive for a long period, move up (or down) in weight and contest elsewhere, or indicate that they are never fighting again by retiring, of course they are no longer lineal. LineAR, yes, some people get a kick out of tracing that stuff - I think there was a linear middleweight title claim that lay with Oscar De La Hoya broken down in Classic not to long ago, was interesting - but it's something very different.

 

I honestly don't ever recall hearing that school of thought before.

For me, in terms of lineal, I view Fury as the man. It's about the man who beat the man.

But I think the lineal distinction is becoming less scientific with time (not that it was ever exactly "scientific to begin with). Too many corrupt alphabet soups, too much promoter nonsense, and basically too much politics getting in the way of the best fighting the best to fill gaps.

If we look post Lewis, we have this huge gap until Wladimir's claim (depending on when you see it). I think a better way of looking at it might be tracing consensus top dogs. I think it's obvious that Vitali was perceived as the best HW champion for a short period after Lewis, and that Wladimir had a long reign after that, which effectively started in 2006, regardless of lineal claims. Fury I think is still in the mix of top dogs, and as long as he resumes boxing (which I'm inclined to believe he will), it will be difficult to appoint a true heir unless Fury ultimately loses to someone (the heir apparent or otherwise).

 

Going into Wlad-Joshua, I was pretty firm in the belief that Wlad's style matched up better with Joshua's, and I haven't wavered from that. Wlad likes methodical operators, as he can usually win that type of battle. That's what, I believe, made him far more competitive with Joshua than he was with Fury. Wlad doesn't look not having some certainty that he has a target to land on, and Joshua's more straightforward approach suits Wlad better.

Now that said, I was wrong about both of Wlad's last 2 fights. I thought he would stop Fury and Joshua. (Although after seeing the first Fury bout, I wasn't liking Wlad's chances in that rematch when originally scheduled).

 

Oh, and also IB, I've seen some of your previous posts on this topic - you have always given Fury far less credit than I have for his ability and tactics when he was pitted up against Wlad. Fury had just the right idea of how to render Wlad's offense impotent, and he did so with near perfect execution.

Even that version of Wlad was no push over. But Fury did everything right to neutralize Wlad, and at that time, Wlad was still very skilled with his approach (that Steward largely helped him perfect in their time together.)

To shut Wlad down, the way Fury did, was something I honestly consider exceptional. I remain impressed by that performance. There's something to be said for the mental war too, but I think that was less significant than the performance itself.