How is Tyson Fury the Lineal Champion?

Anyone see the issue with this claim that Fury has reigned for over 5 years?

The best heavyweight of the previous era was Wladimir Klitschko. Tyson Fury beat him. He is the man who beat the man.

I was hoping somebody could clarify because I only see two ways and neither appears valid. 1) Fury becomes lineal after beating Klitschko, retires for three years and returns with his status being upheld regardless of his absence which is bogus or; 2) in Dec 2018 Fury vs Wilder I was considered the establishment of a new lineage with both men being rated #1 and #2? In Dec 2018 Joshua had the WBO, WBA, IBF, belts with wins over Klitschko, Povetkin, Parker, White, Takam which surpasses anything Wilder had done so did the whore RING magazine have Wilder rated at 1 or 2 at that point in time? Lineal, shmineal…. It don’t matter what term u use. He’s the baddest motha right now.

The furtherest wlads lineage goes back is with the wbo title Which was fought in a vacant fight with herbie hide and Tony Tucker Vitali then took it off hide Chris Byrd took it off vitali Wladimir took it of Chris Byrd That's as far back as we can go it's not a very special lineage if you would even want to call it that It's all from a vacant title which started with hide and Tucker...nothing very special about it and nothing of substance in wlads wins ... This beating the man stuff is a bunch of garbage Wlad was finished his fight prior to losing to fury...he was shot to bits against jennings,no reflexes and cemented feet Furys best win and if we really dig deep into heavyweight history it's nothing spectacular However if Fury came in and outboxed wlad a few rounds and stopped him I would give him more praise but instead he came in for a glorified game of tag against a guy that just couldn't pull the trigger anymore Then goes on to built up wilder as some sort of George foreman esque win when in fact wilder fought nobody substantial...took the belt from nobody (gifted in other word) and started boxing at 25 ...he rolled over 40 odd stiffs with no headmovement and one weapon...foreman was a killing machine ,every punch with both hands could put your lights up and he had good defence and a granite chin and one of the best jabs in the heavyweight division People need to take a deep breath and realise this isn't the greatest era it's one of the worst and the build ups saying wilders one of the most dangerous heavyweights and tysons an atg is all about making money and hype

It has been broken many times. The 'lineal championship" is a marketing ploy. Who did Wlad win it off? He collected most of the belts but there is no connecting him to John L Sullivan lineally. You cant even connect him to Lennox Lewis that way. No one in the last 60+ years atleast has beat the man who beat the man who beat the man..etc. It is a given title by I dont know who now, Ring magazine I guess. This right here how anyone can say its been passed on since sullivan is completely retarded

Tyson Fury is not, and has never been the lineal champion - Because Wladimir was never the lineal champion. When Fury made his comeback, he self proclaimed himself lineal champion to market himself and for some reason it's caught on. Say something enough and it sticks I guess. But while Wladimir was Number 1, he never at any point held every belt or beat the man to become the man.

Lineal championships have gone the way of the dodo. Fury should move on.

Yeah, I don't get caught up with Lineal as it's not legit anymore, if it ever was. So I focus on who's the consensus #1. That's Fury today, with Usyk being #2. For pro-Linealists, you could say that the modern era Lineal will be decided when Fury fights Usyk (assuming he wins the rematch with AJ, which he should).

I don't know what these other guys have offered you (I'll go back and look after I write) but IMO #1 is the correct answer - if it isn't then we have a problem with several old timers. Corbett didn't defend between Mitchell and Fitzsimmons for three years and two months - so if we disregarded argument #1 what then do we say about Fitz? Fitz then went two years and three months between Corbett and Jeffries; Dempsey a full three years between Firpo and Tunney. I suspect there may be more . . . but to me Fury was champion for the Wilder I fight and has been since he beat Wald. Wilder and AJ are just claimants. Of course this is probably not fair but prize fighting often isn't fair. There are certainly more, Louis and Ali for starters. There are no hard and fast rules for the lineal title. That's the tough thing about it. What I will say is that if you can retire, get on the drink and drugs, be inactive for 3 years and then still defend your title against the lines of Seferi and Pianeta then the lineal title ain't worth schitt. If it's of any value, then Tyson Fury doesn't have it.

Fury also is the ONLY 2 Time Champ that has never lost a fight.... Is he also the only 2 time champ to not fight anyone in the top 10 apart from those fights? Or the only one to not fight a mandatory? Does he also have the least defences?

You have to beat the man that beat the man to become a lineal champ and start a new lineal. The last lineal champ was Lennox Lewis and he retired with the lineage. A new lineage would start with an undisputed champ. Fury isn’t the lineal champ - it’s just a marketing ploy when he came back for relevance. And he has stop claiming it since he beat Wilder and took his WBC belt. Hence I always call Fury a prolific scammer - his whole schtick is a fraud. Undisputed fight would start a new lineage. obviously Fury is the man. no heavyweight will beat him. Joshua can go to hell.

I was hoping somebody could clarify because I only see two ways and neither appears valid. 1) Fury becomes lineal after beating Klitschko, retires for three years and returns with his status being upheld regardless of his absence which is bogus or; 2) in Dec 2018 Fury vs Wilder I was considered the establishment of a new lineage with both men being rated #1 and #2? In Dec 2018 Joshua had the WBO, WBA, IBF, belts with wins over Klitschko, Povetkin, Parker, White, Takam which surpasses anything Wilder had done so did the whore RING magazine have Wilder rated at 1 or 2 at that point in time? I don't know what these other guys have offered you (I'll go back and look after I write) but IMO #1 is the correct answer - if it isn't then we have a problem with several old timers. Corbett didn't defend between Mitchell and Fitzsimmons for three years and two months - so if we disregarded argument #1 what then do we say about Fitz? Fitz then went two years and three months between Corbett and Jeffries; Dempsey a full three years between Firpo and Tunney. I suspect there may be more . . . but to me Fury was champion for the Wilder I fight and has been since he beat Wald. Wilder and AJ are just claimants. Of course this is probably not fair but prize fighting often isn't fair.

It sucks that Vitali vs. Lennox 2 never happened. Also if Vitali had kept fighting long enough, it's likely Fury would've beat him. Vitali was tough as a brick but slower than his little bro. Fury's movement would've tied him in knots.

Pretty sure Wlads brother had it, Vitali. But he left boxing in 2013 so it was only logical that Wlad would be the next one. Especially considering both brothers vowed never to fight one another. Ive been quoted twice in this thread and I dont think I was understood. For Tyson Fury to be the Lineal HW Chmpion there would have to be a clear line of succession unbroken from John L Sullivan all the way to Fury himself. There isnt, its not even close. Lennox Lewis wasnt the Lineal Champion nor was Tyson or Larry Holmes or even Ali. It has been fractured countless times. I have no problem with everyone agreeing on one universal champion that stands over all the other belt holders if there are any but you cant be the lineal champion. Its impossible at this point. To me if a guy unifies all the major belts (WBA,IBF,WBC,WBO) thats the champ but other instances could qualify. The whole he beat the man who beat the man who beat the man thing is a marketing thing, its not been true for probably over 100 years.

It has been broken many times. The 'lineal championship" is a marketing ploy. Who did Wlad win it off? He collected most of the belts but there is no connecting him to John L Sullivan lineally. You cant even connect him to Lennox Lewis that way. No one in the last 60+ years atleast has beat the man who beat the man who beat the man..etc. It is a given title by I dont know who now, Ring magazine I guess. Pretty sure Wlads brother had it, Vitali. But he left boxing in 2013 so it was only logical that Wlad would be the next one. Especially considering both brothers vowed never to fight one another.

But Klitschko was the best heavyweight of his time and had a long reign. Fury is the lineal champion of that specific lineage. No two ways about it. That can't be denied. ​​​​​​ Your 'Klitschko lineage' approach means we can have multiple lineal champion claims at points in time. Who was the lineal champion prior to the Fight of the Century? Was it Frazier with the Frazier lineage or was it Ali with the Patterson lineage? Presumably Marciano still held the Charles lineage? And Louis the Schmelling lineage? What claim does Usyk have for the Joshua lineage? Or is there also a vacant lineage? ​​​​ ​​​​​There's a point when this all comes together. History sorts it out. The rest is just all possibilities in the current era.

But Wlad was never a lineal champion. The lineal ended with Lennox Lewis after his retirement. And there has been no undisputed champ to start a new lineage. But Klitschko was the best heavyweight of his time and had a long reign. Fury is the lineal champion of that specific lineage. No two ways about it. That can't be denied. ​​​​​​

I’ve always found the discussion of the “lineal” belt to be largely meaningless. I mean, if we just go back to the 90’s … it was tarnished by Foreman’s controversial decision over Schulz and lack of a rematch … and then Briggs won it with just as controversial a win over Foreman. The belt gained a lot of meaning after Lewis beat Briggs …. then won the unified titles from Holyfield. But was Lewis winning the lineal title somehow more important than him winning the unified titles? Not even close. So just like every other title in the sport, it can be subject to circumstances and controversies. It’s better to just use common sense instead of hold the “lineal” belt up as some be all and and end all of who’s a champion.

You have to beat the man that beat the man to become a lineal champ and start a new lineal. The last lineal champ was Lennox Lewis and he retired with the lineage. A new lineage would start with an undisputed champ. Fury isn’t the lineal champ - it’s just a marketing ploy when he came back for relevance. And he has stop claiming it since he beat Wilder and took his WBC belt. Hence I always call Fury a prolific scammer - his whole schtick is a fraud. Undisputed fight would start a new lineage. Fury is the lineal champ of the Wladimir Klitschko lineage.

It has been broken many times. The 'lineal championship" is a marketing ploy. Who did Wlad win it off? He collected most of the belts but there is no connecting him to John L Sullivan lineally. You cant even connect him to Lennox Lewis that way. No one in the last 60+ years atleast has beat the man who beat the man who beat the man..etc. It is a given title by I dont know who now, Ring magazine I guess. Wlad won it vs Chaguev. Chaguev never had it but the lineal was open at this time. Wlad was 1, and Vitali was 2, but because they couldn't fight, Wlad faced number 3 Chaguev. Also, I'm sure in the history of the Lineal belt that some boxers went longer than Fury did without defending it. Another difference with the Lineal championship is you defend against anyone. Say if you were WBC champion, and faced someone who wasn't ranked, so the fight was a non-WBC title fight, the Lineal would still be on the line. Nash out.