Tyson Fury's era to forget

regarding whyte, he had already beaten him twice, easily. there was no NEED for a third match when he had the belt.

 

Wilder is not the only one with heavy hands, and he's a worse boxer than AJ.

 

"Fury's Era" lol.

He never had an era, nor he was never a reigning champion.

 

Yeah, I always found that hilarious. No one ever gave a crap about the lineal until Fury started mouthing off about it because his own foibles got the belts taken off of him. Plus, it was a (maybe not so) subtle way to undermine AJ by reminding everyone he beat Klitschko first. Even though his fight with Klitschko was an all-time stinker and both guys should have lost and the fans given their money back.

If we're being totally honest, Fury never should have been the lineal champ. He popped for PEDs before the Hammer fight but corruption kept it under wraps until after he'd had his fight with Wlad. So really, Wlad should have been given his belts back and the fight changed to a NC like they did with Haney/Garcia. But of course, no one wanted Wlad to have the belts because he was holding the division up and no one was making any real money.

 

It's too bad, because it had the chance to be a good one. If Fury had stayed on, had had a rematch with Wlad, unified against Wilder and then faced AJ, this could well have been an era that went down in history for some very good match-ups, as oppossed to the dreary decade of Klit dominance preceeding it.

 

I think you might have confused Whyte with Chisora, there. This was Whyte's first title challenge and first fight with Fury. Whyte had also beaten Chisora twice.

But yeah, the Chisora III fight was just a cash crab from his fans by Fury.

 

This isn't true. People have always given a crap about lineal.

You know what they never used to care about? "Undisputed".

 

I think it could be called the Fury-Joshua era. Some would say the "three kings" era, although I think Wilder is a complete fraud, so I wouldn't.

 

W/e you say boss. Ask almost any random boxing fan what the lineal is and they'd have no idea. There have been 7 lineal lines at HW, IIRC. It's stupid and pointless.

 

Casuals can't even name weight divisions sometimes, but it doesn't mean they are stupid and pointless.

 

That is bull****.

You really think the average boxing fan doesn't know what lineal is?

The point of lineal isn't for their to be an unbreaking chain any lineage will be broken eventually by a retirement. Lineal is the fairest way to identify the "heir" who other claimants have to fight. If the best champion isn't lineal the primacy of the lineal title means that champion will seek to dethrone the lineal champion because that title matters the most.

Also we're on like the 4th or 5th new lineage at HW. Prior ones ended with Tunney, Marciano and Lennox. The Vitali one was retconned. While many more lineages have been created in the end they've all merged with the main one. Because the lineal system works.

 

Given a crap so much no one can even tell the story of lineal.

Given a crap so much every single time I bring up the fact Nat Fleischer made that **** up someone is going to act like I said something outlandish.

Given a crap so much and for so long the fact John L never heard the term in his lifetime is always met with surprise.


Before you guys claim history is chalk full of people giving a **** about a title made up after the history is done you should probably check said history. Promise John L gave 0 shits about lineage. Promise his fans were not traditionalists. Promise the man was not a traditionalist. Promise these jamooks do not read primary sources and historian lack the balls to just say Nat Fleischer made that **** up and did a shitty job trying to postdate it into history because his ass did not know TF he was talking about HENCE not one of you can actually explain what lineal even is, BUT, super duper important and always was, historically speaking doe.

What is undisputed? When all major belts are gathered. Not argued. No obscure history "lost" because everyone's too lazy to use the internet to read newspapers themselves.

There is your huge massive difference in importance; clarity. As in juxtaposed to what actually happened no one is very clear on TF Nat was talking about hence lineal still being ill-defined like internet slang.

 

It didn't matter in the 1800s which I've brought up many times. We're in agreement on that. The start of the lineage is hocus pocus.

This is an argument more about lineal v "undisputed" and formal alphabet titles. Lineal has always mattered more than formal alphabet titles. Alphabet titles didn't exist until the 10s and 20s either.

I agree what matters is "clarity". For me its being "the real champ". Which is usually but not always the lineal champ. Undisputed is a marketing gimmick. But undisputed is claiming to be something that it isn't. Its really sanctioning bodies giving champions a medal for letting them take turns picking their opponents. They shifted the responsibility for split belts away from their stupid rules on to the champion for not putting up with them.

 

Sir I am gobsmacked. Truly placed, well done.

I would say lineal too is a marketing gimmick, but that's a different conversation and the subject I raise you have put to rest.