Who beat Tyson Fury, or line will broke again?

I believe most serious Heavyweight boxing fans, with historical knowledge of the sport, know who the Lineal Heavyweight Champion was and is. There is no Belt needed. Oleksandr Usyk has that honor at the moment.

 

Are you saying that Vitali Klitschko retired Lennox Lewis?

 

It sounds an awful lot like you believe in D.
So, what is the argument for C but not having Joshua as champion?
Whether or not people like that outcome, doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong.

Honestly, A is my personal preference, but I don't care if it is A, B, or C. Heck there might be an E or an F.
I would just like a somewhat logical approach that doesn't have a bunch of caveats to get a desired outcome.

The classic forum is full of that

 

LOL
Not my problem if people get into their emotions over that. Besides, I don't necessarily believe it to be the case, I'm just pointing out where the version that excludes Vitali logically leads.

There is an out. Choose the version that includes Vitali. Tbh, I have no idea why some are trying to find reasons to exclude Vitali from the history, or at the very least they seriously downplay his standing in the division at that time to reach a desired outcome.


But, again I favour A
Lewis > Usyk
It's clean. It also seems to be how team Usyk viewed it as well:
Egis Klimas asked, “Tyson Fury, how did he find himself a lineal champion? Let me ask you this: that’s all I have my message going to be to him. Everybody calls him lineal, but I would like to know how he became lineal.” Usyk’s manager further stated that ‘The Gypsy King’ had earlier defeated Wladimir Klitschko; however, the Ukrainian great wasn’t a lineal champion either, he asserted.
https://www.essentiallysports.com/b...atus-in-question-before-oleksandr-usyk-fight/

 

Thank you for explaining what I meant, I thought it was obvious.

lineal is almost like a p4p. Nothing official, no solid facts. For example, was wlad the lineal?

 

Hypothetically, if Lennox Lewis came out of retirement and beat Usyk. Would it be fair to say Lewis was the lineal champion this whole time?

 

Jess Willard and Jack Dempsey were inactive for longer stretches and were still considered champions.

 

He would have a claim, but a very weak one. Since he retired, 3 or even 4 boxers were considered THE heavyweight champions of the world. It all the depends on the public view. John L. Sullivan and Jim Corbett were considered champions after coming out of retirement. Jim Jeffries, Joe Louis, Muhammad Ali (in 1980) weren't.

 

Nobody, except some casuals considered Vitali a superior brother. He was fighting second and third tier heavyweights, while Wlad was cleaning out the division out of top contenders.

 

I think you are down playing an inconvenient truth by saying "Some casuals". Vitali for years was considered the H2H monster of the two. He was the WBC belt holder when it was still considered the prestige title (and the ring champion for a time). He was unbeaten from Lewis until retirement (and effectively retired Lewis). Many still recognized this in 2011.

Now I have no problem agreeing with you and saying he wasn't #1 based on achievement (not that the division was particularly replete with top contenders) but even then he was the clear #2 (and considered by many the bigger challenge H2H). There were the Klitschkos and then a big drop off in quality. Wlad was a coronation because some fans/historians seemingly must have a lineal champion.


And there is the issue, again how can you create a new lineage in 2009 by ignoring Vitali. And to make it even more ridiculous they are pointing to a fight with a last minute opponent in Chagaev (3 weeks notice as replacement for Haye).


As I said, no one necessarily has to recognize Vitali, but let's apply the same standards consistently.

 

An old post copy and paste

Is Fury the Lineal Champion?

Before the obvious answers come flying in. I understand how people say its the man who beat the man and back in 2015, Tyson Fury did exactly that and beat Wladimir Klitschko to make that claim, but then Fury was out of action for a long period and yet he has come back and being called the lineal champion.


So the questions are...

a.) How long could he be out of action to still have that title?

b.) If he never came back, how would a new lineage begin if someone can be gone for so long and just be the lineal champ again ie if Lennox Lewis came back could he have the same claim?

c.) If say Joshua and Wilder had of fought in that time making a new lineage then would Fury automatically take that title off them when he fought Seferi?

d.) Was the fight with Seferi a defence of the lineal HW title?

e.) Does he keep the claim of lineal champion as new lineage had not been determined in his absence?



Im not saying he is or isnt but wanted to know what the general thought was.
Please answer?

 

I mean surely we only need to defer to historians for time periods we're not living through and subjects we don't have an interest in. Historians trying to shape the present are basically journalists.

They create a narrative. There is an argument. Some form of consensus (or it is ratified through force). History isn't quite set in stone.

But anyway, my position is maybe we need to question the logic that led to Wlad being lineal in determining how long Fury was lineal for. Which in fairness, is in direct response to the title of your thread.