Tyson Fury's claim to being the lineal champion meant that all his fights since his return have been billed as being for the lineal heavyweight championship. There was never any guarantee that he would make a comeback, so... If those fights were for the lineal title then wouldn't that mean that Sugar Ray Robinson's fights were for the lineal middleweight championship when he made his comeback in 1955? If so, that would mean that the following fighters succeeded him as the lineal middleweight champion: Ralph 'Tiger' Jones Eduardo Lausse Bobby Boyd Joey Giardello Spider Webb Gene Fullmer (in 1959) Dick Tiger Joey Giardello So, using the logic that's applied today, Robinson was never the lineal middleweight champion again despite winning the undisputed title three more times and the above list does not rejoin the official list until Giardello beat Dick Tiger in 1963. The list illustrates my point that the logic used to claim that Fury's comeback fights were for the lineal title just doesn't hold much water. P.S. I know Tiger was regarded as the lineal champion after Pender's retirement when he stopped Fullmer but Pender was the lineal champion and Tiger never fought him. So, in my opinion, Tiger wasn't yet the lineal champion because he hadn't beaten 'the man' and didn't do so until he regained the title from Giardello in 1965.
That's the whole issue with that "lineal" title thing. You can make a case for sometimes 2 or even 3 somewhat valid lineages at the sime time, or none at all, depending on what your rules are for starting a new lineage, and when one comes to an end.
I think Fury has the only lineage in boxing to be honest. Wlad was definitely The Man. I know he was out for 3 years but he's still unbeaten.
In that case, the list of lineal champions that followed Robinson, starting with Ralph 'Tiger' Jones is more appropriate than the official one. I think the easiest way to resolve the confusion is for a fighter to cease being recognised as the lineal champion once he is now longer competing. He would then have to regain the lineal title. Therefore the succession of the lineal heavyweight title would be as follows: - Fury became the lineal champion when he beat Klitschko. - Fury ceased to be the lineal champion when he vacated the titles and stopped fighting. - Joshua became 'the man' when he defeated Klitschko, the most recent lineal champion who was still active. - Ruiz became the lineal champion when he beat 'the man'. - Joshua became the lineal champion for the first time when he beat Ruiz.
Being "the man" and being "lineal" didn't always go hand in hand. There was a time Tyson was "the man" holding all the belts, but still wasn't "lineal" until 4 fights later.
Fury retired and any claims he had to lineal were moot at that point. He and his promotional team are using this as a promotional tool, which is all the alphabet straps are, after all.
I know. That's why I said Joshua became 'the man' when he beat Klitschko but didn't become the lineal champion until he beat Ruiz.
Even of thats true he rewon it vs Wilder in february. So at this point he is the man however you spin it. What I wonder about with these lineal claims. What happend if a fighter gets clearly robbed? E.g. foreman vs Schultz and Briggs. It came to Lewis either way in the end but a thing like that coukd easily change paths depending on your criteria.
Yes, but it means he does still have 0 defences that way. Nothing... because boxing history would be even more of a mess as it is now. For instance Norton should have been the "lineal" champ back in '76, followed by Larry Holmes in '78 after 3 succesful defences. Who then would have 20 "lineal" defences, then losing to Spinks in '85, would have recovered the title in the '86 rematch, to lose it in his next fight in '88 vs Mike Tyson. Ali would never had been a 3 time champion (2 time only), Holmes would have been "lineal" much earlier in his career and Tyson would have gotten his "linealship" 3 fights earlier. Robberies are to tightly woven into boxing history.
