If Usyk/Fury retires as the champion...

Hell, you've started TWO threads on who the next champion will be after Usyk and Fury retire ...

As well as numerous threads about Joshua, Wilder and Fury ...

And you haven't started A SINGLE THREAD talking about Usyk the fighter or who he's fighting next.

You prove my point.

You can't wait to move on to the next heavyweights.

Usyk's just the guy fighting all the other boxers who people (yourself included) are more fascinated by.

Most dominant champions are the actual focus of a topic. Not their challengers.

The guy is super talented. He just doesn't inspire passion in fans. It happens.

 

Don't worry young man, you're a set of words on a screen so it isn't possible for you to illicit an emotional response. I'm really surprised you've become this triggered.

You posted on a public forum and I replied to say it didn't make sense and it was based on a false premise.

The false premise I'm referring to is "y'all made up this 1 Vs 2 nonsense for Wlad"

In that context who is y'all, which posters are you actually addressing?

Also what makes you believe anything was made up for Wlad?

The concept of linearity has existed a very very long time. The concept of 1vs2 has been debated for much longer than Wlads reign.

So I don't believe anyone made anything up for Wlad, hence I believe your post is based on a false promise. I don't intend to upset you so I apologise for that.

Regards.

 

Look at you, over there writing whole posts with context. Only took you a few pages of antagonism to get there too.

I'm confused as to why there's a break line in the middle of your second sentence.

It is cute how the first thing you have to say of any worth at all surrounds context. Little ironic isn't it?

Y'all, in the contest of that post, means fans and it is a rhetorical you. Feel free to look that up in your own time but is correct and factual and you having missed that just brings us back to my initial response to you; feigning some level of knowledge while blaming others for your own ignorance causing confusion.

"what makes you believe anything was made up for Wlad" Only thing you ever had to ask me. All this posturing ... what's it about? Why was it so hard to get to this?

The concept of lineal is not very old at all, it is a posted dated term applied to champions after the fact. The concept became popular around Ali. Find a Floyd Patterson article from 1956 when he won the vacant lineal title talking about the lineal title. You will not because the concept hadn't been made up. However you can find articles from when Wlad was crowned lineal by the press under the reasoning he was the clear 1 and ruslan 2. Dated 2009. 0 articles written in 1956 about lineal let alone any ratings attached to lineal. 2009 now there's plenty of articles about lineal, about Patterson, and citing 1956 1 vs 2 vacancy fight.

Like the term "Lineal Champion" itself the association with any rating has nothing to do with John L Sullivan, his era, or any boxing tradition. The pre-body champions selected their contenders, there were no ratings.

 

Best hope is that his excellency the great turkey, get a heavyweight unification tournament underway similar to how Tyson became the anointed one in the 80’s

 

I haven't antagonised you, I pointed out a flawed premise. As I said I apologise for upsetting you, it wasn't my intention.

Which fans in particular do you believe made up 1v2 because otherwise it's just an empty address.

I don't want to dwell too much on how wrong you are in this response because you've gone off on a tangent, but for example there was very heavy debate about Jeffries still being lineal champion when Johnson faced him. Same with Corbett once he'd retired. But that's by the by.

I don't think anyone had Wlad and Chagaev the clear 1 and 2, most everyone had the Klitschko brothers 1 and 2. Chagaev was 3rd.

The link back to Sullivan should be an obvious one, it is back to the idea of one champion who loses his belt in the ring only. Because that didn't always happen, even "pre body" boxers got stripped for not facing certain contenders, or for inactivity, especially once the colour line had been crossed.

Like I said, your premise is flawed.

 

I've asked several times about the passive aggressive game you play, you duck the question. I don't know what to tell you other than you're a coward and not very clever. Both your attempts and my shut downs are plain for all to see. Buddy, you literally follow my apology with an apology.

If what you say was true it shouldn't be hard to find a 1910 article with the term lineal champion in it.

You sure you want to hang your hat on Vitali being 1 or 2 near the time Wlad and Ruslan fought?

 

Nothing passive nor aggressive about my posts. I told you it didn't make sense, I explained it was based on a false premise and I have further elaborated.

I didn't expect you to get invested emotionally in an exchange of posts but here we are.

April 20th 1909 Jeffries claimed he was still the champion and ready to defend against all comers, even Johnson should be beat Ketchel. Of course Johnson did beat Ketchel and Jeffries v Johnson fought in the fight of the century.

These are the rankings from the end of 2008, the monthly will soon be published when Saudi scan all of the back issues:

Wladimir Klitschko
Vitali Klitschko
Ruslan Chagaev
Alexander Povetkin
Nikolay Valuev
Sultan Ibragimov
Samuel Peter
Oleg Maskaev
Juan Carlos Gomez
Alexander Dimitrenko

It's not a case of hanging my hat on anything, I've told you from the off your premise was flawed.

 

Wlad was considered the best heavyweight in the world following the retirement of his brother. Whether we consider him lineal or not, he had overwhelmingly viewed as champ by the public prior to losing to Fury.

 

Yes, but you feel that way because of being consistency wrong for years, and I think that needs to be pointed out.

 

Wladimir was never going to fight Vitali so Chagaev was functionally number 2.

 

It was after Vitali's retirement that Wlad was seen as the clear number one heavyweight

 

Irrelevant.

 

Interesting how there's still no source for any claim here. It's also interesting how you've dropped the term lineal champion in favor of "the champion"

That's not a passive aggressive statement

Likewise it's very interesting you admit, after my allusion, to checking Ring's annual rating for consensus 1 and 2.

Not passive aggressive at all. Super interesting.



It's very interesting how you started all of this with a criticism but have yet to show anything beyond surface knowledge of the topic.


You tell us then, who invented ratings? How did Corbett become Sullivan's 2? Why doesn't Jeffries or Patterson mention lineal?

These are genuine questions not rhetorical passive aggressive statements that drive home the fact that you are speaking like you know something but when pushed your have nothing.