Lineal explained by someone who actually knows.

In 2009 it was.

 

I believe that is the summary of what Glauk has been driving at this entire time.

We are too "within it" right now. Many times now we've seen him point out that we oughtn't probably be discussing who is lineal at the moment, as tempting as it may be. It won't be up to us, but to people down the road (maybe including elderly versions of us, with different perspectives than ourselves now) - because the further you zoom out the lens on history the clearer the picture becomes. All the controversies he posted of in the olden days were only controversies in their day. Ultimately a pecking order settled into place. Liberty Vance and whatnot.

Sure, anything done to rectify a broken lineage is potentially going to be problematic, if any number of wonky things happens (previous guy does a head-fake on retirement and returns to kick over the new guy's sandcastle; whose claim is better? etc) - but fortunately the work is done for us, simply by the passage of time and some kind of emergent acclamation coalescing into form. Doesn't happen in the day, right in the very thick of things.

 

Muhammad Ali. What better authority on the matter than The Man himself? IIRC, there are literally REAMS of quotes where Ali declares that he can't lose the title until he's beaten in the ring. 100+ years of Boxing tradition backs this claim. Period, end of....

 

No, it wasn't.

Nobody with 1/2 of a working brain cell would have ranked Chagaev ahead of Vitali Klitschko in 2009. In fact, a reasonably sound argument can be made that Wladimir Klitschko should *not* have been ranked ahead of Vitali in 2009.

The notion that Wlad vs Chagaev was a case of #1 vs #2 is nothing more than Planet Klitschko circle jerk. Come off of that nonsense...

 

That already has a definition - unified.

Having all four belts (or, in the future if there happen to be more universally accepted "legitimate" sanctioning org bodies than our current "Big 4", having all of those org belts) = undisputed.

Unified =/= undisputed (although you have to be unified to be undisputed, you don't have to be undisputed to be unified =/= linear =/= lineal =/= Ring.

They are five distinct things, all different ways to be recognized as "champion" with varying levels of importance depending on your own personal, subjectively interpreted hierarchy.

The matter is complicated because life (and especially modern pro boxing) is complicated.

 

You'd agree that Wlad sold out and took chances with Joshua, though, correct? More so than he did with Fury?

Joshua landing hard shots to hurt & drop him didn't successfully neutralize his offensive willpower (nor efficacy) and yet Fury dancing around throwing pot shots did? You see how I find it hard to believe that it was all 100% about what Fury did that separates his performance vs. Wlad from Joshua's?

On the former night, Wlad fought scared, and on the latter he fought like a man that had seen the error of his ways and wanted to make a statement (much like Bradley had a chip on his shoulder and something to prove in the Provodnikov fight)

 

You have your information arranged in a way where you're not realizing what was going on then. He didn't become lineal after beating Headvetkin. Foh lmao.

 

It is crazy how something so simple has been made so difficult. It's a 1 vs 1 combat sport ... it should be the easiest thing in the world to decide who's the best, the lineal. Then when the lineage is broken, it shouldn't be difficult to start a new one.

Right now it's got to be seen as broken i.e. there is no lineal champion. Fury clearly lost his status. In fact the only time the governing bodies help with the lineal argument is when a champion loses all their belts outside the ring e.g. Fury. It's clear to everyone and their dog that Tyson is no longer fit to be called heavyweight champ in any capacity.

So anyway, working with what we've got. The winner of Joshua vs Parker fights the winner of Wilder vs Ortiz - boom, new lineal champ. And Tyson Fury can work his way back to a shot at the new champ. Should it be any more complicated than that?

 

Exactly WHAT information do I have mis-arranged?

Is it your argument that Chagaev should have been ranked ahead of Vitali Klitschko back in 2009? Is that the snake oil you're selling?

Like i said, NOBODY with 1/2 of a working brain cell would have rated Chagaev ahead of Vitali Klitschko in 2009. NOBODY. Wlad didn't establish a new lineage until he beat Povetkin. Even the clueless so-called boxing "experts" over at the Transnational Boxing Rankings agree;

Come off of your silly nonsense...

 

Ali officially retired two weeks before Frazier-Ellis, effectively relinquishing his claim to the lineal crown. The fact that he changed his mind later doesn't change the fact that he gave up his claim so that someone else could fill the vacancy but the top two heavyweights at the time. Ali entered the first fight with Frazier as the undefeated challenger and previous champion but Frazier entered the ring on Mar 8 1971 as the current and defending lineal champion-cemented by Ali's decision to step aside through retirement the previous year as well as his thumping over Ellis.

 

You still can't go back in time and pretend rankings and opinions weren't what they were. I mean, you can. But that would be skewing reality further from what it is/was.

Classic case of 20/20 hindsight.

Lineal title is opinion based. We each have our own, basically. That's all there is to it. You aren't going to convince people to change their minds. And it is pointless to try anyways, based on your very own definition.