Tyson Fury or Wladimir Klitschko were Never Really "Lineal" Champ? Dead title?

IMO, it takes more than 1 result against the top HW to legitimize a lineal belt. Wlad K. did it vs #3 Chagaev, then #3 Haye, then #2 Povetkin, then #2 Pulev. Thats quite the linear run you would expect from the champion. Fury on the other hand is unproven. He did beat Klitschko but then retired to avoid the rematch, Joshua took over as the number 1, became unified at 3 belts, Fury returns after 2 years, faces # 2 in Wilder, they draw, then wins the next 2 rematches, than faces #6 White. Sorry but thats not enough considering Usyk and Joshua were around. Fury is no linear, should not be called that. He will have the chance to prove it right if he shows up in february.

No, he wouldn't. Retired too long. Fury wasn't. READ MORE. Lol. - - Lineal Tinkerbells dancing around their dead Lineal Carcass in Never Never Land...priceless...:luvbed::luvbed:

No, he wouldn't. Retired too long. Fury wasn't. READ MORE. Lol. Again ... who has the authority to decide how long is too long?

That has always been my contention as well, couldn't Lennox right now just get his license back fight some club fighter and technically be the lineal champion of the world if Fury is? We have to have some standard and that is it, you retire, you forfeit all title claims whether it be for a week or 20 years. That give a lot people a big headache!

This is the reason why I couldn't agree with Fury's lineal title claim when he announced his comeback, despite being a huge fan of his at the time. If a lineal champion turns in his boxing licence and retires, his reign is over. Otherwise, Lennox Lewis would still be the lineal champion. No, he wouldn't. Retired too long. Fury wasn't. READ MORE. Lol.

Wlad was most certainly lineal or the real true and clear HW champion of the world by beating the best available opponents at the time other than of course his big bro part time WBC champion. Fury won their fight making him the real or lineal champion then retired thus vacating any title claim legitimate/official or subjective. This is the reason why I couldn't agree with Fury's lineal title claim when he announced his comeback, despite being a huge fan of his at the time. If a lineal champion turns in his boxing licence and retires, his reign is over. Otherwise, Lennox Lewis would still be the lineal champion.

You also didn't read the link so you're still just guessing in the dark. And wrongly. Why Marciano? Why not Tunney? There's no debate going on here. Simply a remedial education, where those who flunk return to the fields. Yes, I forgot that Tunney retired undefeated. So the man-who-beat-the-man method, which was the only truly objective way of deciding who the lineal champion was, has been inapplicable since 1928.

I acknowledge the basis of your thinking. A belt being a tactile thing, and lineage being based on past history and tradition. But do you fully understand the relationship between federal law and boxing's sanctioning bodies? I do. Very, very well. You are free to put your trust in whomever you like. The ABC titles are real and the history isn't. Who but the flat earth society could ever imagine that we'd ever get to this point? History is real in the sense that what happened, happened. But the significance of what happened is open to debate. Who holds which ABC title is not open to debate. Fury being the WBC champion is an objective fact, which no-one can argue with. Fury being the lineal champion is a subjective opinion, which can be argued with.

Absolutely. There is a lineage, which is a historical record of HW champions from John L to the present day. But there has never been any such thing as a lineal title or a lineal champion, in any objective sense, since Rocky Marciano retired undefeated back in the 1950s and broke the man-who-beat-the-man chain for ever. You also didn't read the link so you're still just guessing in the dark. And wrongly. Why Marciano? Why not Tunney? There's no debate going on here. Simply a remedial education, where those who flunk return to the fields.

Fury is not lineal, even Fury fans are not stupid enough to believe this. After beating Klitschko he cowardly retired for two years to avoid a drug ban or a rematch. He came back fighting Pianeta and Seferi. No, Fury has been a champ since beating Wilder 2020. You didn't read the link so you're still just guessing in the dark. And wrongly.

​ The point is that the lineal title is only "a thing" in the minds of people who think about it. Outside of the minds of the people who think and talk about Tyson Fury, his lineal title does not exist, which means his claim to be the lineal champ can be contested by people who have different ideas about it. But Fury's WBC title is more than just an idea. It has objective, legal, and factual existence. It is objective because he owns a WBC title belt - which exists as a physical object in the real world. That belt has his name engraved upon it, and it was awarded to him by the WBC, who are only people with the legal right to award or withdraw recognition of the WBC title. These are facts, which mean that no rational person can contest Fury's right to call himself the WBC champion. But his right to call himself the lineal champion can be contested and is being contested right here in this thread! I acknowledge the basis of your thinking. A belt being a tactile thing, and lineage being based on past history and tradition. But do you fully understand the relationship between federal law and boxing's sanctioning bodies? I do. Very, very well. You are free to put your trust in whomever you like. The ABC titles are real and the history isn't. Who but the flat earth society could ever imagine that we'd ever get to this point?

Yeah bingo, that why I was saying there is no such thing as a lineal heavyweight champion - It's based solely on people's opinion, and people can disagree. So when Fat Dan was shilling for ESPN going around saying "Tyson Fury is THE. LINEAL. HEAVYWEIGHT. CHAMPION. IT'S A FACT." after Fury had been retired for years following his failed drug tests and Wlad and Joshua had fought for all his belts, it's like.... nah man, that's just your opinion. My opinion is a guy that failed drug tests and vacated his belts to avoid being stripped is not the champion of anything. Usyk is obviously the champ, Fury will be the champ if he beats Usyk. If you have a differing opinion, that's cool. But this is all just people's opinions. Absolutely. There is a lineage, which is a historical record of HW champions from John L to the present day. But there has never been any such thing as a lineal title or a lineal champion, in any objective sense, since Rocky Marciano retired undefeated back in the 1950s and broke the man-who-beat-the-man chain for ever.

But Fury's WBC title is more than just an idea. It has objective, legal, and factual existence. It is objective because he owns a WBC title belt - which exists as a physical object in the real world. That belt has his name engraved upon it, and it was awarded to him by the WBC, who are only people with the legal right to award or withdraw recognition of the WBC title. These are facts, which mean that no rational person can contest Fury's right to call himself the WBC champion. But his right to call himself the lineal champion can be contested and is being contested right here in this thread! Yeah bingo, that why I was saying there is no such thing as a lineal heavyweight champion - It's based solely on people's opinion, and people can disagree. So when Fat Dan was shilling for ESPN going around saying "Tyson Fury is THE. LINEAL. HEAVYWEIGHT. CHAMPION. IT'S A FACT." after Fury had been retired for years following his failed drug tests and Wlad and Joshua had fought for all his belts, it's like.... nah man, that's just your opinion. My opinion is a guy that failed drug tests and vacated his belts to avoid being stripped is not the champion of anything. Usyk is obviously the champ, Fury will be the champ if he beats Usyk. If you have a differing opinion, that's cool. But this is all just people's opinions.

There's DEFINITELY a thing called a lineal title. Lineal has a meaning. Title has a meaning. Those things combined mean something. That said it has been perversed over time, but it has nothing to do with Wlad or Fury. It got fooked up a 100yrs ago when Jim Jefferies retired or at least when Gene Tunney retired (if you wanna give Jack Johnson credit for winning it by beating a 6yr retired Jefferies). Its been a subjective "lineal" title for a century. ​ Thank you. I do miss the point sometimes. I blame it on age. So if you will, remind me. What is the point? The point is that the lineal title is only "a thing" in the minds of people who think about it. Outside of the minds of the people who think and talk about Tyson Fury, his lineal title does not exist, which means his claim to be the lineal champ can be contested by people who have different ideas about it. But Fury's WBC title is more than just an idea. It has objective, legal, and factual existence. It is objective because he owns a WBC title belt - which exists as a physical object in the real world. That belt has his name engraved upon it, and it was awarded to him by the WBC, who are only people with the legal right to award or withdraw recognition of the WBC title. These are facts, which mean that no rational person can contest Fury's right to call himself the WBC champion. But his right to call himself the lineal champion can be contested and is being contested right here in this thread!

I disagree (big surprise). There is no ambiguity regarding the lineage of the Heavyweight boxing title, nor any cogent challenge to it's validity. For the many "Los Banditos" titles, and the reasons why they strip them and bestow them with great (wild) impunity, there is plenty of wiggle room. But not with lineage. One problem, in essence, is that having more than one caretaker for a world championship, be it a newspaper, trade magazine, athletic commission or an independent, for-profit company such as the alphabet organizations; is that having two or more designators inherently demands competition; while conversely, the core purpose of even declaring a Champion is to distinguish One. Needless to say, this creates a conflict in methodology. In American football they had this issue many years ago, and solved it in 1967 with Super Bowl 1. The issue today is that this duality has existed now for so long, that younger fans know nothing else. To them, this is the dark ages, and actual history is frowned upon. Boxing's contribution to "cancel culture ", we might suppose. The self serving and absurdity corrupt WBA, WBC, IBF, etc, have miraculously gained acceptance and influence soley by attrition, aided greatly by the presumptive correlation between boxing fan types and people failing to turn in their homework. Lineage in the weight protected divisions is too convoluted to unravel back to their respective beginnings. But for the Alpha class, that man who beat the man line with uncontested mendings when a champion retires is crystal clear, unimpeachable, often published and widely regarded. Shall I go on? This is Boxing 101, and should be taken as an oath well before any adult forms their first opinion about boxing. Please tell me you got a british accent to boot and are writing these posts sitting next to your open fireplace with a glass of wine nearby. No offense or anything, I was enjoying your back and forth with Dan B.

Fury is not lineal, even Fury fans are not stupid enough to believe this. After beating Klitschko he cowardly retired for two years to avoid a drug ban or a rematch. He came back fighting Pianeta and Seferi. No, Fury has been a champ since beating Wilder 2020.

There's DEFINITELY a thing called a lineal title. Lineal has a meaning. Title has a meaning. Those things combined mean something. That said it has been perversed over time, but it has nothing to do with Wlad or Fury. It got fooked up a 100yrs ago when Jim Jefferies retired or at least when Gene Tunney retired (if you wanna give Jack Johnson credit for winning it by beating a 6yr retired Jefferies). Its been a subjective "lineal" title for a century. You are confused and trust me, that is NOT intended as an insult. History is about accurately recording what has happened, and preserving those accounts for future generations to learn from. It is an important, almost sacred pursuit. I think that anyone interested in World History > Sports > Unarmed Combat > Combat Sports > Boxing > The Heavyweight champion of the world, should read this. https://www.linealboxingchampion.com/the-history-of-the-lineal-heavyweight-championship-boxing-heavyweight-champions ​ Try not to read it with the intention of hoping to find something to challenge. Instead, drink it in like something good for intellectual nourishment. It's just history.

Well, that was an interesting read, but you're missing the point, as usual. Or maybe you're deliberately avoiding it? Only you know the answer to that. Thank you. I do miss the point sometimes. I blame it on age. So if you will, remind me. What is the point?

Thank you my friend for your interest. ...Because the WBC TELLS you who their champion is. They decide that. Not fights or history. They decide. When it suits them, they tell you that somebody else is now champion, without having to fight the last champion in order to win their "title". If that makes sense to you, then bless you. Now, this is a teaching moment. Remember when Larry Holmes was the WBC heavyweight champion? He held their title from June 1978, when he whipped Everybody's number one at the time, Ken Norton in a classic, through 16 title defenses against the very best, one after another, and beat the last two champions easily, including the lineal champion Ali. Then, one day, Don King got hold of Jose Suliman, in the fall of 1983, and "convinced" the head of the family company that King's fighter, Greg Page should be next in line for a title shot. Now Page was a pretty good fighter. I knew him, actually; but he had already lost badly to Trevor Berbick on the Holmes-Cooney undercard, blowing a shot at Holmes (Holmes would beat Berbick instead), and was no better than any of the guys Holmes had been busy destroying for years. The WBC, a for-profit belt selling company and NOTHING else, at King's urging, "Stripped" the undefeated, 45-0-0, long time number one ranked champion Holmes of the WBC title, and bestowed it on the winner of a small WBC "vacant title" tournament featuring, you guessed it; Greg Page beating Renaldo Snipes (who Holmes had already beaten), thus earning the right to fight Tim Witherspoon (who Holmes had already beaten), for the WBC heavyweight title. Witherspoon won. You can't make this stuff up! For Holmes, it didn't effect his status as champion one way or the other. He was by far the best in the world, and was the Man who BEAT the Man. Holmes, you see; had a great reputation. The WBA and WBC, just didn't. But a man needs a belt, right? Lest his pants fall down? Enter the IBF. Today, young fans see it on even footing with the other two, but back in 1984, another character I knew, the late Bobby Lee was founding the International Boxing Federation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inte...ing_Federation Holmes seamlessly dropped the WBC belt and accepted the IBF belt. So rather than a sanctioning body legitimizing a champion's claim to the title; the lineal champion legitimized the 3rd sanctioning body! That's just how it went down, and Holmes would continue on as the one true king, while the other two sanctioning bodies recognized a string of pedestrian contenders as "Champion of the World". A bogus copy of the 304 year old title that men die trying to earn a shot at. Sadly, nothing has improved in 40 years. These fly by night charlatans continue to strip and sell title recognition to the highest bidder, and although we appear to be on the verge of crowning a new undisputed heavyweight champion today, which will includ ALL the belts (now up to 4), AND the lineal championship; the "Banditos" sanctioning bodies are already making noise about "Stripping" their plastic belts from the winner, as I had discussed as an inevitable crime to come, some months ago. But we can all be assured that the winner, be it Usyk or Fury, will be anointed as true champion and remembered as such; because the lineage doesn't play those games. Those who ignore history..... Well, that was an interesting read, but you're missing the point, as usual. Or maybe you're deliberately avoiding it? Only you know the answer to that.

"There is no ambiguity regarding the lineage of the Heavyweight boxing title, nor any cogent challenge to it's validity." That statement is obviously false, otherwise, this thread and the discussion taking place in it would not exist. Have you ever seen threads with guys arguing about who is the real WBC, WBA, IBF or WBO champion? Me neither. But threads and discussions disputing lineal title claims are a staple of this forum. Why do you think that it is? Why is nobody, not even the most biased Fury hater, disputing his claim to be the WBC champion, but many, including Fury fans, dispute his lineal claim? Think about that, and maybe the penny will drop. Thank you my friend for your interest. ...Because the WBC TELLS you who their champion is. They decide that. Not fights or history. They decide. When it suits them, they tell you that somebody else is now champion, without having to fight the last champion in order to win their "title". If that makes sense to you, then bless you. Now, this is a teaching moment. Remember when Larry Holmes was the WBC heavyweight champion? He held their title from June 1978, when he whipped Everybody's number one at the time, Ken Norton in a classic, through 16 title defenses against the very best, one after another, and beat the last two champions easily, including the lineal champion Ali. Then, one day, Don King got hold of Jose Suliman, in the fall of 1983, and "convinced" the head of the family company that King's fighter, Greg Page should be next in line for a title shot. Now Page was a pretty good fighter. I knew him, actually; but he had already lost badly to Trevor Berbick on the Holmes-Cooney undercard, blowing a shot at Holmes (Holmes would beat Berbick instead), and was no better than any of the guys Holmes had been busy destroying for years. The WBC, a for-profit belt selling company and NOTHING else, at King's urging, "Stripped" the undefeated, 45-0-0, long time number one ranked champion Holmes of the WBC title, and bestowed it on the winner of a small WBC "vacant title" tournament featuring, you guessed it; Greg Page beating Renaldo Snipes (who Holmes had already beaten), thus earning the right to fight Tim Witherspoon (who Holmes had already beaten), for the WBC heavyweight title. Witherspoon won. You can't make this stuff up! For Holmes, it didn't effect his status as champion one way or the other. He was by far the best in the world, and was the Man who BEAT the Man. Holmes, you see; had a great reputation. The WBA and WBC, just didn't. But a man needs a belt, right? Lest his pants fall down? Enter the IBF. Today, young fans see it on even footing with the other two, but back in 1984, another character I knew, the late Bobby Lee was founding the International Boxing Federation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Boxing_Federation Holmes seamlessly dropped the WBC belt and accepted the IBF belt. So rather than a sanctioning body legitimizing a champion's claim to the title; the lineal champion legitimized the 3rd sanctioning body! That's just how it went down, and Holmes would continue on as the one true king, while the other two sanctioning bodies recognized a string of pedestrian contenders as "Champion of the World". A bogus copy of the 304 year old title that men die trying to earn a shot at. Sadly, nothing has improved in 40 years. These fly by night charlatans continue to strip and sell title recognition to the highest bidder, and although we appear to be on the verge of crowning a new undisputed heavyweight champion today, which will includ ALL the belts (now up to 4), AND the lineal championship; the "Banditos" sanctioning bodies are already making noise about "Stripping" their plastic belts from the winner, as I had discussed as an inevitable crime to come, some months ago. But we can all be assured that the winner, be it Usyk or Fury, will be anointed as true champion and remembered as such; because the lineage doesn't play those games. Those who ignore history.....