Who beat Tyson Fury, or line will broke again?

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by ikrasevic, Nov 3, 2021.



  1. Rumsfeld

    Rumsfeld Moderator Staff Member

    48,867
    13,578
    Jul 19, 2004
    Historically that has never been the case, even in more recent times.

    At different points in the last 40 years, Michael Spinks, George Foreman, Shannon Briggs, and Tyson Fury were all considered lineal world heavyweight champions, despite not holding any of the shady alphabet trinkets.
     
  2. Finkel

    Finkel Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,387
    3,873
    Feb 10, 2020
    That isn't really the same thing being argued.

    My understanding is Patterson v Moore was #1v#2 after Marciano's retirement. All in your list above, except for Fury, trace back to Patterson.

    Was Patterson being the heavyweight champion when he defeated Moore disputed? Genuine question, btw.
    Was there an equally relevant belt holder at the time?

    From a layman's perspective (my own), I could understand the desire to maybe attach the lineage to that of the WBA belt coming through the NBA. But clearly the WBC champion is considered equivalent to the WBA champion. So I don't see how anyone can just pretend the WBC title wouldn't be relevant in creating a new lineage.

    When Wlad fought Chagaev, his brother Vitali was holding the WBC strap.
    When Wlad fought Povetkin, his brother Vitali was holding the WBC strap.

    The WBC title might be an inconvenience, but there you go.

    Again, as a layman, it seems obvious that you would create a new lineage through an undisputed champion.
     
  3. Rumsfeld

    Rumsfeld Moderator Staff Member

    48,867
    13,578
    Jul 19, 2004
    I'm not sure why you're putting so much emphasis on the "need" to be undisputed in order to establish a new lineage. In my opinion, you're putting way too much stock in corrupt alphabet bodies. Again, your claim lacks historical precedent. Becoming undisputed was never a prerequisite for establishing a new lineage following a champion's permanent retirement.

    Patterson and Moore were considered the top 2, and Archie was the favorite going in. I'm not aware of any major dispute over the newly established lineage, but even if some debate did exist for a time, Patterson's claim survived the test of time. It was a similar situation when Schmeling beat Sharkey after Tunney retired.

    Wlad beating Chagaev was widely accepted as the tangible point in time when Wladimir began a new lineage, and rightly so in my eyes. Who cares if Vitali held the WBC? It's irrelevant. Vitali only had 2 wins in the last 4 and a half years at that point. And ultimately, Wlad's claim also survived the test of time, where he was the #1 heavyweight for a stretch that lasted nearly a decade, including 18 consecutive title defenses.

    The funny thing is, based on memory, I don't ever remember anyone ever seriously questioning Wlad's claim to the lineage during his later years prior to facing Fury. Even after Fury beat Wlad, I don't remember any dissenting voices loudly objecting. It's only been the last two years or so where I've noticed more widespread objections claiming that "Wlad and Fury were never lineal". They both were, and now Usyk has a rightful claim as well.

    It reminds me of people hoping Jeffries would beat Johnson, which theoretically may have completely erased the Hart-Burns-Johnson lineage from history. Obviously not with the same racial motivation, but I feel like people are trying to erase Wlad and Fury's rightful claims from history.

    The lineage isn't an exact science, but it remains an important concept with the shady mess of alphabet soup utterly ruining the sport today.

    The dust ultimately settles on these things, even if it takes some time.

    I believe history will remember the Wlad-Fury-Usyk line, much in the same way public acceptance solidified the Hart-Burns-Johnson line.
     
  4. Finkel

    Finkel Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,387
    3,873
    Feb 10, 2020
    Okay, you can say undisputed isn't necessary, but if the prerequisite is 1v2, then sorry but Chagaev just doesn't qualify. It doesn't meet your own standard.

    As I recall most thought Vitali was the superior brother of the two pretty much until his eventual second retirement. Beating him was always relevant. For example, In Britain it was very much a case of Haye v little bro, and if he gets passed him, then he gets to fight big bro (the real big boss)

    Wlad's claim to being the man seems very wishy-washy without becoming undisputed (i.e. fighting his brother > Stiverne > Wilder)
     
    Rumsfeld likes this.
  5. Rumsfeld

    Rumsfeld Moderator Staff Member

    48,867
    13,578
    Jul 19, 2004
    :lol:

    Look, you're free to think whatever you want.

    But one way or another, in my humble opinion, arguments against Wlad ever becoming lineal are extremely weak.

    I personally agree with Wlad-Chagaev being the tangible point in time where a new lineage started, because anyone who seriously rated Vitali at #2 after only beating Sam Peter and Juan Carlos Gomez... it's a generous stretch at best. The Peter win was extremely impressive to be sure, but does that 1 victory really lift Vitali over Chagaev at that time? I think not.

    But even if you believe it does, by the time Wlad faced Povetkin, Vitali was effectively retired (even if he technically held the WBC).

    You want to dismiss that? By the time Wlad faced Pulev, Vitali was officially retired.

    And even if you want to reject all of that, public acceptance following a long and dominant reign still took shape.

    One way or another, I firmly believe that history will remember Wladimir as having rightfully established a new lineage, like Patterson and Shcmeling before him (and even Hart too, although that comparison is less direct).
     
    MaccaveliMacc and Finkel like this.
  6. Finkel

    Finkel Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,387
    3,873
    Feb 10, 2020
    Well isn't that the problem. We are all free to think what we want without a standard we can point to.

    You mentioned the importance of public perception, but as above with the later Hate situation, public perception was that Vitali was very much relevant. Maybe because some saw him as the Ring champion, I dunno

    You noted that by the time Wlad fought Pulev, Vitali was officially retired. But I suspect that was exactly why Klitschko wanted to fight Stiverne for the WBC title instead of Pulev (See the link above)
    to put to bed any dispute over who was the man of the division. How? By becoming undisputed.

    But sure, history may well fall on your side of things. But one thing is for sure, there is no disputing Usyk's lineage.
     
    Rumsfeld likes this.
  7. Rumsfeld

    Rumsfeld Moderator Staff Member

    48,867
    13,578
    Jul 19, 2004
    I would say Wlad wanted to fight Stiverne because he wanted to be undisputed. Not to mention he already was recognized as the rightful lineal world champion long before he ultimately faced Pulev. But either way, I maintain that any dissenters denying Wlad's rightful claim are weak at best, and certainly lacking in historical precedent.

    There is no denying Usyk's claim, on that we certainly agree.

    If you want to dismiss the Maher-Fitzsimmons-Sharkey line (which most do), and if you want to dismiss the Hart-Burns-Johnson lineage (which most do not), one way or another - you still ultimately go from Jeffries to Johnson, with or without those transitionary branches. Same can be said of Lennox to Usyk. If you want to dismiss Wlad-Fury-Usyk, you still ultimately get from Lennox to Usyk.

    But denying Wlad's claim is a tough sell by any reasonable historical standard.
     
    MaccaveliMacc and Finkel like this.
  8. OldSchoolBoxing

    OldSchoolBoxing Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,907
    2,493
    Sep 30, 2021
  9. lordlosh

    lordlosh Boxing Junkie banned Full Member

    7,762
    7,461
    Jun 4, 2014
    I'm not watching 40 minutes video of anyone, let alone Rummy, who with all due respect and i like him as a poster, his videos 99% of the time are just plain wrong lol. :D


    Your answer just proves my point, this is imaginary title, and doesn't have any serious rules behind it, just some type of imaginery based on who someone fan is.

    The moment you have a situation where 1 fighter retired, and then you have a new Lineal Champion, and then another fighter is ban for Drugs and then officially retire and then somehow he keep his title, you knows this "title" means absolutely dog*****.

    Also again there is no chance that Wladimir should have taken the title, when Vitali was active, and Vitali was the guy who literally retired = the guy.
    So if anything Vitali should have been Lineal Champion, not Wladimir.

    Looking at the Lineal site, and this just shows how fake the whole thing is:

    Somehow James J. Jeffries retire in 1905, and the same year we have new Lineal in Marvin Hart.

    Somehow Marciano Retired in 56, and hope straight away with got a new Lineal Champion same year in Floyd Patterson.

    Gene Tunney retired in 28, then in 30 we have new Lineal.

    And then the funny part.
    Lewis retired in 2004, and we have Lineal 5 years later. For what reason is 5 years later, no one knows.
    For what reason is not Vitali, no one knows.

    Then somehow we have a Lineal in Fury, with a reign of 2015-2014. How the f**** you can have Fury as Lineal and him being Lineal that long, when he didn't fight from 2015 till 2018. This is 3 years of his reign, yet somehow he is "reigning" as Lineal in the time he is serving his ban and he is officially retired.

    And the guy that runs the site, and was spreading this nonsenses in Twitter is a Fury bot. So this is all you need to know.

    Rummy also choosing to completely ignore my post, shows you all you need to know.

    Until you answer this questions and give an explanation how you can change and bend the rules for Fury, no one can take this imaginary belt seriously.

    For me IBO belt has way more meaning than the so call "lineal".
     
  10. lordlosh

    lordlosh Boxing Junkie banned Full Member

    7,762
    7,461
    Jun 4, 2014
    Stop avoiding my posts, and explain to my post above and the previous one (aka the one i quote now) or all this Lineal nonsense gets in the garbage.
     
  11. ikrasevic

    ikrasevic Good people of all countries, unite! Full Member

    5,740
    6,266
    Nov 3, 2021
    @MaccaveliMacc

    Now it's official - Usyk is the lineal champion.
     
  12. ruffryders

    ruffryders Member Full Member

    335
    164
    Oct 7, 2010
    Lineal is no authority, only fury has banged on about this but you can’t defend an imaginary belt.

    Who are the mandatories for this lineal belt? who are the top 10 in the lineal ranking system?

    also, when did wlad become lineal?
    wlad wasnt even classed as the best in his family. He was known at the time to be the weaker of the 2 brothers. When vitali was about, he was the main brother.
     
  13. ikrasevic

    ikrasevic Good people of all countries, unite! Full Member

    5,740
    6,266
    Nov 3, 2021
    It all depends on how you look at it. It doesn't matter who loves whom and who hates whom. It doesn't matter who you like and who you don't like...
    When you say...
    ...you said - Usyk is not an authority :)
     
  14. Finkel

    Finkel Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,387
    3,873
    Feb 10, 2020
    He likely means Lineal is not a controlling organization (an authority = a controlling organisation).
    WBC is a boxing authority
    BBBoC is a boxing authority
    Even The Ring is a boxing authority in loose sense as they have their own rules surrounding defending their belt and how it is assigned.
    etc.
    But "Lineal" is not, and it is not connected to any "officially" recognized authority/organization
     
    ikrasevic likes this.
  15. Finkel

    Finkel Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,387
    3,873
    Feb 10, 2020
    It is Choose Your Poison regarding Lineal after Lewis:

    You believe:

    (A) that Lewis retired the lineage, and Undisputed created a new lineage
    This content is protected

    Lewis|R-2004|
    Usyk (2024~​

    (B) that retirements count from date of last fight, and #1 v #3 is okay for a new lineage
    This content is protected

    Lewis |R-2003|
    Vitali |R-2012|
    Wlad (2013) > Fury > Usyk (2024~​

    (C) that retirements count from announcement date, and #1 v #3 is okay for a new lineage
    This content is protected

    Lewis|R-2004|
    Wlad (2009) > Fury |R-2016|
    Joshua (2017) > Ruiz Jr. > Joshua > Usyk (2021~​

    (D) in Fury fan theories that don't hold water
    This content is protected

    Lewis|R-2004|
    Wlad (2009) > Fury > Usyk (2024~​