Who beat Tyson Fury, or line will broke again?

Rumsfeld · Jun 14, 2024

Finkel said: ↑

The issue will always be that the creation of a new man shouldn't be disputed. Logically that means he is undisputed.
Click to expand...

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.

Finkel · Jun 14, 2024

Rumsfeld said: ↑

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.
Click to expand...

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.

Rumsfeld · Jun 14, 2024

Finkel said: ↑

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.
Click to expand...

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.

Finkel · Jun 14, 2024

Rumsfeld said: ↑

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.
Click to expand...

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 · Jun 14, 2024

Finkel said: ↑

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)
Click to expand...

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).

Finkel · Jun 14, 2024

Rumsfeld said: ↑

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 beating Sam Peter and Juan Carlos Gomez... it's a generous stretch at best. The Peter win was extremely impressive, but does that 1 victory really lift Vitali over Chagaev at that time?

But even if you say no, 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).
Click to expand...

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 · Jun 14, 2024

Finkel said: ↑

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.
Click to expand...

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.

OldSchoolBoxing · Jun 14, 2024

It has been remade.

lordlosh · Jun 14, 2024

ikrasevic said: ↑

All your questions should be answered here:

This content is protected

Not once, but three times in heavyweight history, has a lineal champion retired (Tunney, Marciano, Lewis).
The one who "retired" and then boxed professionally again, I don't count as retired.
Click to expand...

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.

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".

lordlosh · Jun 14, 2024

Rumsfeld said: ↑

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.
Click to expand...

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.

lordlosh said: ↑

Lineal is b.c. gimmick that only Tyson Fury was talking about, as he had nothing else at one point and to con the casuals.
How the heck Klitschko became Lineal and when exactly??
If anything that should have been Vitali, as he was winning on the cards clearly against Lewis and was his last fight, as well as Lewis retired when he was forced to fight Vitali again. So how the heck did Wlad become Lineal???
And even if we somehow accept that Fury was Lineal for beating Klitschko, he should have lost that title the moment he get caught doping and ducked the Klitschko rematch. He wasn't just banned he retired to con the public with his mental health lies. We don't have magic ball to know what would have happened, so why the heck he stayed Lineal when he was banned and was retired? Also the moment you get caught cheating with PEDS you automatically gets stripped of any titles you have. And again he was retired.
How could when Lewis retired we get new Lineal, but when Fury has popped and retired he still somehow stayed Lineal??? That doesn't make any sense, as you have essentially 2 options.
Either AJ should have been Lineal for becoming the man when he beat Klitschko to Unify the division and then Parker OR
Lewis or whatever was the first retired Lineal is still Linear.
Otherwise Lewis can return to Pro Boxing and he can claim he is the Linear.

In reality Linear is imaginary belt, that only Frauds talking or crying about.
Writing while walking the dog from a phone and can't correct typos.
And don't use the forums on the PC anymore.
Click to expand...

ikrasevic · Jul 3, 2024

@MaccaveliMacc

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

ruffryders · Jul 3, 2024

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.

ikrasevic · Jul 3, 2024

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...

ruffryders said: ↑

Lineal is no authority
Click to expand...

...you said - Usyk is not an authority

Finkel · Jul 3, 2024

ikrasevic said: ↑

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
Click to expand...

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

Finkel · Jul 3, 2024

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~

Log in or Sign up

Who beat Tyson Fury, or line will broke again?

Rumsfeld Moderator Staff Member

Finkel Boxing Addict Full Member

Rumsfeld Moderator Staff Member

Finkel Boxing Addict Full Member

Rumsfeld Moderator Staff Member

Finkel Boxing Addict Full Member

Rumsfeld Moderator Staff Member

OldSchoolBoxing Boxing Addict Full Member

lordlosh Boxing Junkie banned Full Member

lordlosh Boxing Junkie banned Full Member

ikrasevic Our pope is the Holy Spirit Full Member

ruffryders Active Member Full Member

ikrasevic Our pope is the Holy Spirit Full Member

Finkel Boxing Addict Full Member

Finkel Boxing Addict Full Member

Log in or Sign up

Forums

Who beat Tyson Fury, or line will broke again?

Rumsfeld Moderator Staff Member

Finkel Boxing Addict Full Member

Rumsfeld Moderator Staff Member

Finkel Boxing Addict Full Member

Rumsfeld Moderator Staff Member

Finkel Boxing Addict Full Member

Rumsfeld Moderator Staff Member

OldSchoolBoxing Boxing Addict Full Member

lordlosh Boxing Junkie banned Full Member

lordlosh Boxing Junkie banned Full Member

ikrasevic Our pope is the Holy Spirit Full Member

ruffryders Active Member Full Member

ikrasevic Our pope is the Holy Spirit Full Member

Finkel Boxing Addict Full Member

Finkel Boxing Addict Full Member