Tyson Fury's era to forget

That's kind of what I was getting at with semantics. I've not read every single source so to say you're never going to find that word play is super bold, even for me. What I am saying is you will not find the concept predating Nat. The closest thing you can find is Fox's and he titles on defense. Man who beat the man and defended.

That is why the interim period features such a hodge-podge of rules, regardless of official or just for fans. Rules of fights let alone how champions are declared were up for debate until the bodies normalized.

To give a direct example, when Corbett released the status to Maher he was being a traditionalist. The public rejected this. When Jeffries elected Hart he was being a traditionalist, the public was fine with it. Because you're coming off the heels of the champion who ended traditionalism, there were no set rules period. No old traditions were followed strictly but nothing new took over either. Everything is debatable, equipment, rules, who deserves what, what "world" status even means, everything.

Which is why everyone who tries to plaster lineal over dates where it does not belong ends up speaking in vague terms to justify false stances. It's man who beat the man except for X and 1 vs 2 except for Y and such nonsense because it is originally a false history. There's plenty of history for what happens after a champion retires in boxing before 1888. Plenty of champions elected the next champion or those who would fight for the titles before gloves became standard. After John L the very next guy does it and for some reason his man is still not seen as a champion by fans then or now. Historians or media outlets, no one recognizes Maher. Spring? Hart? No problem. Just not Maher.

Super curious state of things if lineal has **** all anything to do even in concept with how champions were declared before John.

Super curious state of things if lineal has **** all anything to do even in concept with how champions were declared after John.

Not such a curious state of things if rules, champions, and everything between were debatable.

It's not a concept that predate the bodies. It's a concept that is contemporary to the bodies that deals with history before the bodies, poorly.

And again, no dog in any is lineal good, bad, valued, or worthless, but history should be set right eventually. It's not any fan's fault they believe lineal, semantics or conceptually, existed in anyway before Nat and Ring made it up, y'all were told Nat Fleischer was a historian.

There are some close word plays and sure enough beating a champion always has impact in boxing but man who beat the man is very much a modern concept and lineal is very much a modern boxing verbiage.


If people are genuinely interested I'll write up a super long one and just explain champion history.

 

Do it. I've seen a lot of bashing Fleisher from your side, but not a lot of substance. A long article showing were Fleisher was wrong and providing the proof from the source material would be awesome.

 

This Holmes lineage thing seems to be based on a general perception that he was the best. By that logic Sonny Liston was lineal from 1958 onwards as he was clearly the best heavyweight in the world and would have beaten Patterson. That would erase Johannson from the heavyweight lineage and mean that Patterson wasn't the first two time champ.

Do you feel that Liston should be recognized as lineal from 1958 on using the criteria for Holmes? Both were clearly the best in the division

 

Nope, it isn't. Being the best has nothing to do with the lineage. And I already explained it to you. Holmes was the lineal champion because he literally beat the lineal champion. Had other claims to the crown beside that too.

 

His primary claim was simply based on the perception that he was the best which is why he was generally seen as champ prior to fighting a totally shot Ali with parkinsons who would have lost to anyone in the top 10.

So pretty similar to Liston

 

Again, being shot doesn't strip you of the claim. And yes, the new consensus champion is usually the best one out there. The dfifference is, Liston was the best while there was a reigning champion and you can't be the man without beating the man. Holmes became the man and then solidifed his claim by beating the returning lineal champion.

 

If Holmes can become the man without beating his co champs than why can't Liston do the same. We know with hindsight he would have beaten Patterson in 1958 and was only prevented due to ducking.

 

But Holmes beat his co-champ, that's why he started to be recognized by The Ring. His co-champ just happen not to have a belt when he did that. But people didn't care. Liston fought when there was a universally recognized champion, you can't be the man without beating the man. You're grasping for straws haaaard with Liston, lol.

 

Exactly.

Fury's career is more defined by ending things than by building things or going on impressive runs...
Ending Wlads reign.
Ending Wilder's Bum Carousel and rescuing the hostage belt.

Fury's not gone on consistent runs, defended belts multiple times against the best options - he's been fun at times, and he's inconsistent which makes things interesting... But he's also a convicted drugs cheat who was more interested in being disruptive than proving as much as he possibly could - hence the refusal to rematch Wlad, refusal to fight Joshua, etc.

 

I just watched Tyson Fury's retirement video he looks OLD AS FFFUUUUUUUUCCCKKK

This content is protected

 

AJ vs Fury even now I would still want to watch it. Fury must have got knocked out in sparring again and lost all his confidence this is awful. Thats such an important fight still to salvage who was the best of their era pre Usyk. A win is the difference between Fury cementing a decent to alright but not quite excellent career or becoming a forgotten name eventually. He still needs that win so bad to rescue his legacy.

 

Nothing happened to Fury, he's always been this way. The dude is a conman at heart. He's spent his entire career avoiding tough fights and using his mouth to convince people he's something he ain't.

Dude ducked David Price. Bailed on fighting Ustinov. Swerved the Wlad rematch. Pretended he wanted the AJ fight when he knew he had to fight Wilder a 3rd time. Pretended he wanted to fight AJ again just to be a dick and screw him around. Ducked Usyk for two years so he could fight Chisora and then Ngannou. And I'm sure I've forgotten something since this is such a recurring theme with him.

He has N-E-V-E-R wanted to fight AJ. Why? Is he scared of AJ? No, he's just scared of what losing to AJ would do to his ego and reputation. When you go around claiming you're the best ever and your entire brand is built of being the untouchable Gypsy King, it's kinda dangerous to your little empire to go losing to the other big time British boxing star. Hard to show your face down at the pub if AJ sleeps you in the ring. And for a money grubbing shyster like Fury the fans, the historical importance of the fight, and his own legacy don't matter. You think he cares if people moan about the fight not happening for the next thirty years? That's much better than people clowning him for losing the fight for the rest of his life. I doubt he'll be bothered whatsoever by not having a diminished AJ on his already ultra-weak record while he's Scrooge McDucking into his vast hoard of money.

The Saudis had to pay Fury the GDP of a small nation to get him to fight Usyk. And that was a guy not known for his punching power who Fury figured he'd have a decent chance at robbing on the cards. If it didn't work out he always had the option he's currently going with which is to claim he was robbed twice. AJ ain't showing up to beat Fury on points. AJ, for all his faults, still cracks extremely hard and Fury's punch resistance up and left town awhile back. The risk just highly outweighs the reward for Fury. Plain and simple.

 

Yeah but this also really hurts AJ. Just imagine AJ KOing Fury how majestic that would be, yeah they're both past it but that would be such a magical moment for him. To be looked upon as great you need certain magical moments to look back on with your career and this would give AJ that little bump when we look back on his career and decide if we should look back with some fondness or just with dismissal. Very, very big loss for him I think.

 

There's definitely some truth here...

And it probably weighs into it - without that fight, at least for now, Fury knows he's seen as probably the better of the two... Take it and lose and he loses that, but take it and win only benefits him if the narratives would've/so change otherwise (and they might well not).