Who beat Tyson Fury, or line will broke again?

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


By the way you mentioned that you try to align with the historians but I noticed CyberZoneBoxing (who created their list with support of the historians at the IBRO) has
Fury |R-2016|
Fury (2020~


This means they acknowledge retirement as date of first announcement. Then established a new lineage for Fury when he beat Wilder in 2020.

Lewis |R -2004|
Wlad (#1) v Chagev (#3)-2009 > Fury |R-2016|
Fury v Wilder (2020~

Unfortunately that comes with it's own problems. By retiring Lewis in 2004 it allows them to discount Vitali's potential reign from 2003. But crucially they also ignore Vitali in 2009 to allow #1v #3 for Wlad v Chagaev. By doing that, however, they can't logically ignore Klitchko v Joshua in 2017...

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

 

TLDR: It's not a popularity contest. I'm just pointing out the lack of consistency. And it's a mess!

But, sure, I might start a thread on classic next month when I have some free time. I would really like to know how people are squaring the circle surrounding all these issues. There are way, WAY too many caveats to get a certain desired outcome.



The main issue is caused by two things:
What is classified as retirement and trying to make Wlad v Chagaev in 2009 as the point of a new lineage, but not being consistent in application.


First problem: there are two (maybe 3*) common arguments for when a retirement begins and lineage ends:
1) From date of announcement.
2) Back dated to last fight after announcement.
*3) A line is broken upon death of the retiring champion.
There is no order of strongest to weakest claim, more choose your poison, but let's be consistent.

Second problem: How to create a new lineage:
A) The winner becoming lineal champion is not under dispute: i.e. Undisputed (or the undisputed #1 and #2)
B) A fight between the #1 and #2 of the moment
C) #1 v #3 of the moment is enough but it needs to be a unification
D) #1 v #3 of the moment is enough and it doesn't need to be a unification
This is in order of strongest to weakest claim: (A) the strongest, (D) the weakest.

What does Retirement (1) look like?
1A) Lewis |R-2004| >> Usyk (2024~

1B) Lewis |R| >> Klitschko v Povetkin (2013) > Fury |R-2016| >> Klitschko v Joshua (2017~
1B) Lewis |R| >> Klitschko v Povetkin (2013) > Fury |R-2017| >> Fury v Wilder (2020~
1B) Lewis |R| >> Klitschko v Povetkin (2013) > Fury |R| >> Usyk v Joshua (2021~
1B) Lewis |R| >> Klitschko v Povetkin (2013) > Fury |R| >> Usyk v Fury (2024~

1C) Lewis |R| >> Klitschko v Haye (2011) > Fury |R-2016| >> Klitschko v Joshua (2017~
1C) Lewis |R| >> Klitschko v Haye (2011) > Fury |R-2017| >> Fury v Wilder (2020~
1C) Lewis |R| >> Klitschko v Haye (2011) > Fury |R| >> Usyk v Joshua (2021~
1C) Lewis |R| >> Klitschko v Haye (2011) > Fury |R| >> Usyk v Fury (2024~

1D) Lewis |R| >> Klitschko v Chagaev (2009) > Fury |R-2016| >> Klitschko v Joshua (2017~
1D) Lewis |R| >> Klitschko v Chagaev (2009) > Fury |R-2017| >> Fury v Wilder (2020~
1D) Lewis |R| >> Klitschko v Chagaev (2009) > Fury |R| >> Usyk v Joshua (2021~
1D) Lewis |R| >> Klitschko v Chagaev (2009)> Fury |R| >> Usyk v Fury (2024~

What does Retirement (2) look like?
2A) Lewis |R-2003| >> Usyk (2024~

2B) Lewis |R| >> Klitschko v Povetkin (2013) > Fury |R-2015| >> Klitschko v Joshua (2017~
2B) Lewis |R| >> Klitschko v Povetkin (2013) > Fury |R| >> Fury v Wilder (2020~
2B) Lewis |R| >> Klitschko v Povetkin (2013) > Fury |R| >> Usyk v Joshua (2021~
2B) Lewis |R| >> Klitschko v Povetkin (2013) > Fury |R| >> Usyk v Fury (2024~

2C) Lewis |R| >> Klitschko v Haye (2011) > Fury |R-2015| >> Klitschko v Joshua (2017~
2C) Lewis |R| >> Klitschko v Haye (2011) > Fury |R| >> Fury v Wilder (2020~
1C) Lewis |R| >> Klitschko v Haye (2011) > Fury |R| >> Usyk v Joshua (2021~
1C) Lewis |R| >> Klitschko v Haye (2011) > Fury |R| >> Usyk v Fury (2024~

2D) Lewis |R| >> Lewis |R-2003| >> Vitali v Sanders (2003) |R- 2013| >> Klitschko v Povetkin (2013) Fury |R-2015| >> Klitschko v Joshua (2017~
2D) Lewis |R| >> Lewis |R-2003| >> Vitali v Sanders (2003) |R- 2013| >> Klitschko v Povetkin (2013) Fury |R| >> Fury v Wilder (2020~
2D) Lewis |R| >> Lewis |R-2003| >> Vitali v Sanders (2003) |R- 2013| >> Klitschko v Povetkin (2013) Fury |R| >> Usyk v Joshua (2021~
2D) Lewis |R| >> Lewis |R-2003| >> Vitali v Sanders (2003) |R- 2013| >> Klitschko v Povetkin (2013) Fury |R| >> Usyk v Fury (2024~

Wlad v Chagaev (#1 v #3) causes a lot of problems really
At that time there were the Klitschkos (#1 and #2) and everyone else. Chagaev was considered to be #3. However, was no longer WBA champion due to pulling out of a Valuev rematch three times (a sequence of unfortunate injuries and medical conditions),
he failed a medical due to a hepatitis infection (May 29th 2009),
he was a last-minute replacement for David Haye (June 5th 2009),
He fights Klitschko three weeks later (June 20th, 2009).
Retires in the corner.

But fine, we are now saying #1 v #3 is enough to start a new lineage (not only #1 v #2). But that throws up issues:
Vitali v Sanders qualifies --- if you follow retirement rule (1) for Lewis
Klitschko v Joshua qualifies --- if you follow retirement rule (1) for Fury
Klitschko v Joshua qualifies --- if you follow retirement rule (2) for Lewis and Fury

It's a mess


(I'll save this as a copy pasta if I ever start that thread in classic. Not typing all that again, especially if some of it is wrong )

 

I forgot the third option where fighters are lineal until death or they lose, but you can still start a new lineage

What does no-retirement look like?
3A) Lewis (continues) || Usyk (2024~

3B) Lewis (continues) || Klitschko v Povetkin (2013) > Fury > Usyk (2024 ~

3C) Lewis (continues) || Klitschko v Haye (2011) > Fury > Usyk (2024 ~

3D) Lewis (continues) || Vitali v Sanders (2003); Vitali (continues) || Klitschko v Povetkin (2013) > Fury > Usyk (2024 ~

No room for Klitschko v Chagaev here though

 

Good questions, I'll give it a go from my personal position IF we consider Fury as having won the Lineal Championship in 2015.

He lost it upon retirement in 2016. OR He keeps it until beaten.

Yes, if Lennox Lewis came back under this premise he would still have the claim. Personally, I don't think there is anything stopping there being multiple lines, just as there have been multiple competing lines of kings in history. The real lineage to the UK Royal Family are actually living in Australia, for example...

No, based on (B) there would just be two competing lines active at once. It would require a fight to settle things. (wasn't Ali v Frasier a similar scenario?) - we basically got that in Usyk v Fury

Based on the above, it was a defence within Fury's lineage

It likely was determined in his absence, unfortunately. However, as above I don't see why his own lineage would not continue as a competing line. (Again, I'm thinking Ali v Frazier, but I'm not historian)

I guess part of the issue is some don't recognize anything after Lewis. And see Usyk as starting a new lineage this year.

 

The thing is, Vitali wasn't universally viewed as the 2nd best heavyweight in the world in June 2009.

When Vitali retired in December 2005, Wladimir and Chagaev emerged as Top 2 heavyweights. They beat most of the the top fighers among each other. Wlad beat Chris Byrd, Samuel Peter, Hasim Rahman, Sultan Ibragimov & Lamon Brewster while Chagaev beat Nikolay Valuev and John Ruiz. If you look this in terms of sort of a unofficial tournament, other top heavyweights Oleg Maskaev and James Toney were beat by Peter (whom Wlad defeated), Siarhei Liakhovich was beat by Nikolay Valuev (whom Chagaev beat) and Shannon Briggs got beat by Sultan Ibragimov (who was beat by Wlad). No matter how you slice it, all roads led to Wlad and Chagaev.

Vitali returned in 2008, but wins against Peter and Gomez didn't earn him the status that could affect Wlad and Chagaev's claims as the top 2 heavyweights in the eyes of the majority of the public. As Cliff Rold wrote before the fight:

“While Vitali was away, it was his brother and Chagaev who emerged as the best in class and, while Vitali has a say, a fight between Wladimir and Chagaev would be more than enough to declare a new start point for the lineage of the division. Wladimir has won ten straight since his last loss. Of those ten, five were legitimate top five-ten contenders (Samuel Peter, Chris Byrd, Calvin Brock, Sultan Ibragimov, Tony Thompson) at the time Wladimir fought them. Lamon Brewster represented revenge over the last man to defeat him and Hasim Rahman, in his last fight, gave him a win over one of only two active former lineal World Heavyweight Champions.

He’s already been all but officially crowned on those merits. Big brother made a splash with comeback wins over Peter and top-ten contender Juan Carlos Gomez, but he doesn’t have the sheer volume to overcome little brother’s advantage in laying claim to the summit of the sweet science.

And Chagaev is the highest rated opponent left available to seal the deal because the brother’s won’t be fighting each other. Ring has already indicated in their headlines they’d recognize a Wladimir-Chagaev winner as the division’s true king and, unlike the Vitali fiasco, this coronation would stick.”

 

I won't disagree that Wlad had been beating the best of the division and in that regards had earnt the #1 status in his brother's absence. But that doesn't make Chagaev #2 by default.

To be honest, the more I examine the situation, the less viable Chagaev was as #2. Mainly on two levels: who he had beaten, and his condition at that time:

First, look at these rankings posted by another user based on the concept of a lineage:

Obviously, no ranking system is perfect, but wins over Ruiz and Valuev for a title that was considered secondary to the WBC isn't enough. Certainly not to elevate him over the WBC champion. Especially considering he was stripped by the WBA.

Second, yes some may point to the eye test or who he was at the time is more important. But since beating Valuev he was plagued by injury troubles. To the point, I'm not sure Vitali's retirement is even relevant anymore, considering their similar innactivity.
In the two years preceding Klitschko v Chagaev,
Chagaev fought twice... (Skelton & Drummond)
Vitali fought twice... (Peter & Gomez)

I don't see how Chagaev has any claim to #2. He was lucky to still be considered #3 based on injuries and no longer having a title.

And I just want to bring up something here, it's a bit of an aside, but something that others have argued. I have heard it argued that Klitschko v Chagaev was a defacto unification fight. However, we can't say
Klitschko #1 v Chagaev #3 is okay (because Chagaev held the WBA title last)
whilst ignoring
Vitali #1 v Sanders #3 (because Sanders held the WBO title last)

What makes it even worse is, as I mentioned already, Chagaev had just been stripped because he cancelled for a third time against Valuev. Failing a medical with hepatitis. So not only was he coming off an illness, was belt-less, and had barely fought anyone to maintain such a high ranking, but he was also a last-minute replacement for David Haye.

Making that for the Ring title let alone the lineal title was nothing more than a gimmick pushed by the press to sell a less popular fighter than the one that had just fell through.

Ultimately, there were better fights to crown Klitschko with. v Chagaev was not it.

As an interesting aside, here is a record of the HW lineage maintained by an amateur historian:
Boxing Championship Lineages (arcaneknowledge.org)
He has an alternative line of recognition, but he is consistent. Actually, he has Wladimir's lineage starting in 2006 with his win against Byrd, due to Vitali's retirement. It makes sense

 

I think @Rumsfeld also considers Byrd vs. Wlad II as a starting point of the new lineage.

 

The fact of a matter is, and we need to acknowledge it, there is no clear way how the lineage is re-established and how the boxer becomes the universally recognized champion. It just happens that we usually know who the champ is. Ezzard Charles was the champ, but was it from the moment he beat Walcott? From the moment he beat Louis? Or from the moment Louis beat Savold and BBBofC finally recognized him as the champion? Larry Holmes was the champion. But from which moment? When Ali retired and he became the lone titleholder? When Weaver beat Tate and The Ring Magazine proclaimed him the champion since he already beat Weaver? When he beat Ali? When he beat Cooney who was rated as the number 2 contender after Weaver? It's unclear, but the sheer fact that Spinks was considered the champion even without the alphabet belt, says a lot about Holmes' status.

Wlad has so many claims to the title it's not even funny. You got the Byrd fight in 2006, Chagaev fight in 2009, Haye fight in 2011, Povetkin fight in 2013 and Pulev fight in 2014. He was also practically undisputed from December 2013 until May 2014. We know that he was the universally recognized heavyweight champion. Again, we know it from the fact that Fury was still considered the champion by a majority of the public after he was stripped. I think it's the similar situation to the man who was proclaimed the first heavyweight champion of the gloved era - John L. Sullivan. We know he was the champion, we know Jim Corbett won the championship from him, but it's hard to tell when he became the champion.

 

You make some very convincing points as to why Wlad should be recognized (especially, v Povetkin). But I should point out that on the one hand you want to argue that public opinion didn't matter regarding Vitali, and on the other present an argument that it does for Fury to keep his claim. It could very well be possible, but it just needs to line up.

As I've said, this is not really about me saying who was or wasn't lineal champion so much as being about consistency of application. But I can definitely see why there is so much support for Wlad being a lineal champion.

 

Just for another way of looking at this, I've run a basic ELO model on my database where all fighters start at 0, can't go negative, and decay linearly after 1 year of activity. I've optimised the k-factor and decay rate for predictive power, and it produces the following for the 2 years leading up to the Klitschko / Chaguev fight:

Jun-2009 hosted at ImgBB — ImgBB (ibb.co)

So this indicates that Klitschko and Chaguev were the clear #1 and #2 at the time, and had been for a while. Povetkin was #3, and Vitali was #4, both around 200 points behind. For context, with an ELO model a gap of 200 points indicates the higher rated fighter will win roughly 75% of the time.

Recent Wins above 1400:
Wladimir had beaten Peter (1559), Byrd (2042), Brock (1737), Ibragimov (1827), Thompson (1489).
Chagaev had beaten Ruiz (1485), Valuev (2082) and Skelton (1826)
Povetkin had beaten Byrd (1619) and Chambers (1860)
Vitali had beaten Peter (1935) and Gomez (1619)

So at least by this measure, Wladimir vs. Chagaev was a #1 vs #2 fight with no really close #3 contender, meaning it should be enough to establish a lineage.

 

You might be interested in PBO's website on this. They keep a historical record of their rankings through the lineage of each belt. Here is the lineage of the IBF. So you can see where Wlad was ranked (general ranking) and the general rankings of his defences:
https://www.premierboxingorganisation.com/lineage-IBF
Wlad was #4 when he beat Byrd #1. Then Wlad took the #1 spot. Chagaev was #4. Haye was #3. Povetkin was #3. Pulev #3.
PBO did actually recognize Chagaev as #2 after beating Valuev until late 2008, but Vitali was #2 after beating Peter and that lasted from 2009 until retirement.

 

Well, from what I've researched, Vitali just didn't get the universal recognition. He had a claim, from being the one who was winning on the scorecards with the previous lineal champion before the fight was stopped, he beat the number 3 guy who beat the long ranked number 2 guy, but still he needed that Byrd victory to cement himself as the champ. Who knows, maybe if fought for longer, he would have gained the universal recognition. But he defended the title once and retired. After that, his brother emerged as the most dominant heavyweight and it was hard for Vitali to back up his claim as he couldn't fight for the number 1 spot.