Video - Fury's rightful claim to the lineage

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Rumsfeld, Dec 19, 2018.


Page 4 of 4
  1. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,579
    27,234
    Feb 15, 2006
    I guess that the Joe Louis example, is the fly in the ointment here.

    That is one instance, where the champion's decision to retire, has always been treated as being binding.

    It is also the case, where you would have to rewrite the lineage, in order for your argument to be consistent.
     
    janitor, Dec 21, 2018
    janitor, Dec 21, 2018
    #46
    Rumsfeld and mcvey like this.
  2. Rumsfeld

    Rumsfeld Moderator Staff Member

    49,523
    15,941
    Jul 19, 2004
    But Ezzard cemented his claim beyond reproach when he defeated Louis. I get what you're saying, but all the situations of a guy retiring (or having his license suspended) who later made comebacks ALL ultimately lost against their successor. So IF Wilder and AJ had faced off a few months before Fury returned, the winner would have taken the appropriate steps to start a new lineage, but there would always be question marks remaining until that winner faced Fury or his would-be conqueror in this hypothetical.

    Incidentally, not that it means anything, but I was on Ezzard Charles' Wikipedia page the other day, and I believe it technically states he wasn't lineal until after he defeated Louis, for what that's worth. :lol:

    I do understand your greater point here, however - that when Louis retired, it was treated as "binding" and more definitive than other situations, barring Jeffries. All the same, my greater point has always been that the successor cemented his claim by beating the former champ who retired - Johnson over Jeffries, Charles over Louis, Frazier over Ali, and Holmes over Ali. Had AJ or Wilder established a new lineage in Fury's absence, and he returned - to cement their new claims, I maintain that based on historical precedent, the hypothetical Wilder-AJ victor would NEED to defeat Fury (or Fury's would-be conqueror) to cement/solidify said new claim. And history does support this in every single similar situation from heavyweight past.
     
    Rumsfeld, Dec 21, 2018
    Rumsfeld, Dec 21, 2018
    #47
  3. sauhund II

    sauhund II Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,507
    2,203
    Nov 8, 2008
    BINGO
     
    sauhund II, Dec 21, 2018
    sauhund II, Dec 21, 2018
    #48
  4. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,578
    Nov 24, 2005
    But when Joe Louis retired, Charles and Walcott were the leading two contenders and established a new line by meeting in the ring, is that not the case ?

    That's certainly the way I see it, although RING magazine I believe had it different.

    My argument is wholly consistent, it is others who can't explain how some "retirements" are ignored and some are taken as concrete and final rendering the championship "vacant".
    It hasn't been explained. It seems Fury gets treated differently.
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2018
    Unforgiven, Dec 21, 2018
    Unforgiven, Dec 21, 2018
    #49
  5. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,578
    Nov 24, 2005
    I don't care about the RING magazine much either, but I see some people using their rankings as the gold standard, and in the next breath denying their champions. Not you, but I mention it anyway.

    Fury's retirements lasted weeks, often a day, probably less than a day ! .... LOL
    What's the difference ? There's no difference. He would say "I'm not fighting again" one week, followed by about three weeks of claiming he's still the champion and he's coming back. Why are people quick to take his retirements so seriously, and ignore the other stuff?

    And Fury has returned before anyone has established themselves as THE CHAMPION.
    Importainly, Fury claims the championship, he hasn't relinquished the claim, so should still be regarded as such.

    Dempsey's a good enough standard for me.
    If we're going to sit here 100 years later and say Dempsey was champion, despite everything, and most agree he was, then I'll give Fury the same benefit.

    I've been accused of being "selective" and "cherry picking" by mcvey, but actually I see all the selectivity coming from those who seem to want to deny Fury the same historical standard everyone else has had.

    Admittedly the whole subject is shaded with a few grey areas.

    If you beat the champ you are the champ.
    It's that simple.
     
    Unforgiven, Dec 21, 2018
    Unforgiven, Dec 21, 2018
    #50
Page 4 of 4