The lineal HW title. A fart in the wind.

and to think usyk's people are literally dying to become like the west :luvbed: its a money thing, noone wants to be poor

History is history. Reality is real. It's the way I really feel.

I did, because I was describing the limited way in which that subset of people tackle that complex issue. Do you understand now or are you going to continue arguing past me? To return to what sparked this somewhat sordid digression, you were suggesting the chaotic and semi-literate Fury was such a threat to the establishment that 'they' (the government presumably) came up with this bizarre conspiracy to stage a failed drug test. He and his father have both also promoted anti-Semitic tropes about a certain ethnic group secretly controlling the world, the latter even saying it to Colin Hart's (who was of that group) face. Perhaps you can confirm whether you agree with them or not so we need not waste time discussing anything further? "I did, because I was describing the limited way in which that subset of people tackle that complex issue" I don't understand why you would do that in reply to a comment from me, unless you were assuming that I was one of that subset of people. "Perhaps you can confirm whether you agree with them or not so we need not waste time discussing anything further?" This was a very complicated case, which I followed closely, as I was a massive Tyson Fury fan back then. This is a summary of what happened: In Feb 2015, elevated level of nandrolone were detected by UKAD in Fury's post fight urine sample after he beat Christian Hammer. A follow up blood sample was clean. (Same thing happened with Tyson's cousin, Hughie, who fought on the same bill). Nandrolone is produced naturally in the human body, and elevated levels can occur naturally after ingestion of legal supplements and food stuffs, combined with strenuous exercise. The Fury's were questioned by UKAD and given some dietary advice, but no charges were brought against them. They were both being trained by Hughie's father, Peter Fury, at that time. In May 2016, Tyson Fury kicked up a shit storm of controversy with comments he made about homosexuals, transsexuals, and Jewish financiers. In June 2016, 15 months after the flagged samples were taken, and one month after those controversial comments from Tyson, UKAD decided to charge Tyson and Hughie with a PED violation and the BBBoC suspended their licenses. The Fury's appealed against this suspension, and after a court hearing, the BBBoC were ordered by the court to lift their suspensions. Team Fury then brought a legal case against UKAD for defamation and loss of earnings. In Sept 2016, UKAD inspectors visited the Fury's gym to conduct a random test on Tyson Fury. Fury refused to provide any samples, and reportedly told the UKAD team to fuck off out of his gym. UKAD then charged him with refusing to provide a sample for testing, which carries a 4 year ban. In Dec 2017, after a series of postponements of the hearings into the nandrolne charges, some requested by team Fury, some requested by UKAD, Team Fury and UKAD announced that a deal had been struck to resolve their issues. Team Fury dropped their defamation case against UKAD and accepted back dated 2 year bans for Tyson and Hughie for the nandrolone violations, and UKAD withdrew the charge of refusing to provide a test sample they had brought against Tyson.

No, you specifically said it was an alt-right talking point. Presumably because you think that only alt-right extremists would give a shit about hundreds of white schoolgirls being systematically raped by gangs of Asian Muslim men, while the police, following orders from their masters in the civil service, turned a blind eye to it . I did, because I was describing the limited way in which that subset of people tackle that complex issue. Do you understand now or are you going to continue arguing past me? To return to what sparked this somewhat sordid digression, you were suggesting the chaotic and semi-literate Fury was such a threat to the establishment that 'they' (the government presumably) came up with this bizarre conspiracy to stage a failed drug test. He and his father have both also promoted anti-Semitic tropes about a certain ethnic group secretly controlling the world, the latter even saying it to Colin Hart's (who was of that group) face. Perhaps you can confirm whether you agree with them or not so we need not waste time discussing anything further?

I didn't say it was a conspiracy theory, I said it was a talking point. If you want to talk seriously about that subject then this isn't the appropriate forum for it. No, you specifically said it was an alt-right talking point. Presumably because you think that only alt-right extremists give a shit about hundreds of white schoolgirls being systematically raped by gangs of Asian Muslim men, while the police, following orders from their masters in the civil service, turn a blind eye to it .

History is history. Then Fury made history beating both Pianeta and Seferi. Two comfortable victories. He made history. History is open to interpretation.

There are entire threads dedicated to discussion regarding who was the lineal champion from the point of Fury's ban and retirement to the first Fury v Usyk fight. You seem to think that the fact that you have a definitive belief in a set of rules must mean that you're right. Lineal is full of grey areas. If you truly believe that lineal remained with Fury, then you truly believe that the lineal champion can be banned for Nandrolone, can retire, can blow up to 300 pounds, can defend the status against Pianeta and Seferi. If all of that is true then I don't know why we're even talking about it - it would be more pointless than a "Regular" title. History is history.

I'm afraid there's a lot more to this than alt-right conspiracy theories. https://news.sky.com/story/grooming-gangs-scandal-timeline-what-happened-what-inquiries-there-were-and-how-starmer-was-involved-after-elon-musks-accusations-13285021 I didn't say it was a conspiracy theory, I said it was a talking point. If you want to talk seriously about that subject then this isn't the appropriate forum for it.

I'm afraid there's a lot more to this than alt-right conspiracy theories. https://news.sky.com/story/grooming-gangs-scandal-timeline-what-happened-what-inquiries-there-were-and-how-starmer-was-involved-after-elon-musks-accusations-13285021you limeyroids freaky as hell as your yank friends across the pond with a leader covering up for jeff and to think usyk's people are literally dying to become like the west :luvbed:

Yes because you're now veering off into alt-right talking points. I'm afraid there's a lot more to this than alt-right conspiracy theories. https://news.sky.com/story/grooming-gangs-scandal-timeline-what-happened-what-inquiries-there-were-and-how-starmer-was-involved-after-elon-musks-accusations-13285021

More laughable conspiracist guff? Yes because you're now veering off into alt-right talking points.

There are entire threads dedicated to discussion regarding who was the lineal champion from the point of Fury's ban and retirement to the first Fury v Usyk fight. You seem to think that the fact that you have a definitive belief in a set of rules must mean that you're right. Lineal is full of grey areas. If you truly believe that lineal remained with Fury, then you truly believe that the lineal champion can be banned for Nandrolone, can retire, can blow up to 300 pounds, can defend the status against Pianeta and Seferi. If all of that is true then I don't know why we're even talking about it - it would be more pointless than a "Regular" title. I've made that same point myself, umpteen times, to people who point to secondary world titles and say ... " See, this is why we need the lineal! " A "world title" that gives the "champion" all the rights without any of the responsibilities associated with championship status is nothing but a marketing. tool.

This is laughable conspiracist guff. The kind of rubbish Ryan Garcia (a mentally ill drug addict) comes out with. This is not VADA we're talking about, this is UKAD, a government quango funded by tax payers money and ultimately controlled by the UK civil service. The same civil service which, for decades, conspired to cover up the systematic rape and sexual abuse of schoolgirls by Muslim grooming gangs. More laughable conspiracist guff?

15 months later, to be precise. That was definitely very suspect. It makes you wonder ... did UKAD brush a genuine possessive test result under the carpet, or did they cook up a fake one to take Fury down when he started making a nuisance of himself in the mainstream media. This is laughable conspiracist guff. The kind of rubbish Ryan Garcia (a mentally ill drug addict) comes out with.

It's not dodgy at all, he didn't test positive for the Wlad fight. What's dodgy is how the results from the Hamer fight only became an Issue a year later once Fury gained a public platform and started talking out about the J's 15 months later, to be precise. That was definitely very suspect. It makes you wonder ... did UKAD brush a genuine possessive test result under the carpet, or did they cook up a fake one to take Fury down when he started making a nuisance of himself in the mainstream media.

"Coming off a loss" - those words get presented as though they're some kind of definitive decider. Boxers lose sometimes. Wlad was a very clear #1 before the defeat to Fury. He remained #2 to Fury afterwards until Fury retired. He didn't fight for 18 months but that wasn't exactly straight inactivity or contemplation of retirement. He was in camp for a #1 v #2 fight untill Fury finally dropped away in retirement/disgrace. Then they made the fight against the highest ranked guy possible - Joshua. They were clearly the two best at that time. For what it's worth, TBRB ranked Wlad at #2 to Joshua's #1 immediately after they fought. In any case it really doesn't matter. The point is that there were multiple claims to the lineage because no-one had established their claim beyond any doubt. Until Usyk beat Fury. Prior to that is one of those grey areas that have existed many times in the history of boxing, only to be cleared up by a single champion. People might rewrite that history and claim precedents but none exist and there's no-one to adjudicate them. We all know what the man looks like once he's become the man. To be honest, it was Fury and ESPN's marketing that even made this an issue. He had no right to claim that status, and even less right to devalue it with the fights he apparently defended it in. If his claims were true then the lineal championship was worthless. He claims to be a boxing historian but he's actually exactly what he appears to be - a gypsy conman. To the best of my knowledge, Tyson Fury is the only man who has laid claim to the lineal title since Lewis retired. I never heard Wlad claiming to be lineal champ, and Usyk laughed off the lineage as "Tyson Fury's bullshit" when he was asked about it. Personally, I didn't know that Wlad was supposed to be the lineal champion till Fury started trumpeting about it after they signed to fight. And, given that there is no clear consensus on when Wlad actually became lineal, I wonder if he knew anything about it himself before that.

Grey in your mind alone. There are entire threads dedicated to discussion regarding who was the lineal champion from the point of Fury's ban and retirement to the first Fury v Usyk fight. You seem to think that the fact that you have a definitive belief in a set of rules must mean that you're right. Lineal is full of grey areas. If you truly believe that lineal remained with Fury, then you truly believe that the lineal champion can be banned for Nandrolone, can retire, can blow up to 300 pounds, can defend the status against Pianeta and Seferi. If all of that is true then I don't know why we're even talking about it - it would be more pointless than a "Regular" title.

I have no issue with Wlad's claim. Furry claimed the status when he returned from retirement and drug related bans. He used it as a marketing tool because he didn't have a title. Again, if lineal is worth anything, then surely it doesn't continue through drugs bans and retirements. Fury has tried to rewrite that history as a mental health break. No, he got done for Nandrolone and it's dodgy as hell that his fight with Klitschko wasn't written off. He should have been banned for that fight, not retrospectively banned for one night against Hammer and then later after his title win. In any case. Usyk restored order. Everything from Klitschko to Usyk is grey. Grey in your mind alone.

"Coming off a loss" - those words get presented as though they're some kind of definitive decider. Boxers lose sometimes. Wlad was a very clear #1 before the defeat to Fury. He remained #2 to Fury afterwards until Fury retired. He didn't fight for 18 months but that wasn't exactly straight inactivity or contemplation of retirement. He was in camp for a #1 v #2 fight untill Fury finally dropped away in retirement/disgrace. Then they made the fight against the highest ranked guy possible - Joshua. They were clearly the two best at that time. For what it's worth, TBRB ranked Wlad at #2 to Joshua's #1 immediately after they fought. In any case it really doesn't matter. The point is that there were multiple claims to the lineage because no-one had established their claim beyond any doubt. Until Usyk beat Fury. Prior to that is one of those grey areas that have existed many times in the history of boxing, only to be cleared up by a single champion. People might rewrite that history and claim precedents but none exist and there's no-one to adjudicate them. We all know what the man looks like once he's become the man. To be honest, it was Fury and ESPN's marketing that even made this an issue. He had no right to claim that status, and even less right to devalue it with the fights he apparently defended it in. If his claims were true then the lineal championship was worthless. He claims to be a boxing historian but he's actually exactly what he appears to be - a gypsy conman. This argument is predicated on one, single question. Did Tyson Fury win against Wladimir Klitschko, or did he not? Beyond that question; the post is comprised of pychobabel. Joshua certainly had no claim to anything not made of plastic for having beaten the aged, inactive, unranked and titless Klitschko. As far as bold claims regarding the existence of an historical precident, dancing around the relationship between precedent and adjudication; or inventing "multiple claims" to the title liniage when there simply were not, well; I Don't wish to be harsh. Believe as you wish. That is a problem for nobody.

You are not alone in being confused my friend. The Title Sanctioning Bodies have worked diligently since the mid 1970's to confound you, and in so doing establish their meaning, and cause for existence, with high******* the flagship weight class as their most stubborn objective. This is due to THAT particular division alone having a crystal clear liniage. See if this helps: Each of the 9 incorporated boxing sanctioning bodies (5 currently being "acknowledged" in the Media/Blogger community in English speaking countries); are notorious and sometimes even felonious; and perfectly irrelevant at heavyweight, where the title liniage is universally acknowledged and uncontested amongst boxing's historians. The so-called "world title sanctioning body" companies can sell their belts to whatever promotional companies they please, and those belts can land around the waist of any contender, fringe contender or non-contender in the world (as they frequently do), with no effect on the Heavyweight Championship of the World. The WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO, WBU, etc, are strictly self-appointed, and mean little at the Heavyweight/Open division. You want the one real title? Beat Usyk, or wait for him to retire. Regarding the latter choice: THE Historical Precedent states that, should Usyk came back after a retirement announcement, he retains the linear claim for up to 48 months shouldhe return to action, but only if he fights one of the top 2 acknowledged new title claimants on the scene, within 3 fights of his return; and wins, will he retain the title and be recognized as the champion in recess for the duration of his absence; thus nullifying any conflicting title claims made during that period for the linial title (Fury). However, should he lose the fight against the new title claimant, his reign as champion will be regarded as having concluded upon his initial retirement announcement (Louis, Ali, Ali 2). Should the sitting champion retire and remain retired for greater than 48 months before announcing and fulfilling a return to the ring, his claim to the title will no longer be valid, and in a title bout arranged during a return to action, he will be listed as the challenger for the title he once held (Jeffries). Aborted retirements while holding the crown - Duration of retirements from official announcement to comeback fight: Jeffries.......05/05 - 07/10....62 months Louis...........03/49 - 09/50....18 months Ali................04/67 - 10/70....42 months Ali 2.............07/79 - 10/80....15 months Fury.............10/16 - 06/18....20 months Tunney, Marciano and Lewis are the only modern era heavyweight champions to have successfully retired as champion and not come back. Each of these had relinquished any claim as champion, therefore, at the point of their retirement. In each of the three instances of that, the new champion in the historic line was established by a protracted process in which ALL bonified contenders were sorted by results in the ring, leading to a reestablished world champion who solitified that claim by attrition through either continued success or losing to a better challenger to replace him, ensuring that the best in the world became champion only through actions in the ring; beyond the corruption of opinion or agenda. None of those events were challenged by the public, the press or the industry itself; and each employed a universally accepted means by which title continuity was irrefutably mended to the satisfaction of all. If you don't buy into this, as being both a logical and the one true process for the establishment of determining the world heavyweight boxing champion, I cannot assist you, and I zealously encourage you to follow any path you like! Hopefully, that would not be to place your trust in the hand of the aforementioned sanctioning body companies; who presently list, as legitimate contenders for their "titles", the likes of: IBF 13. Peter Kadiru (KOd in first climb up by 23-11 Marcos Antonio Aum The WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO, WBU, etc, are strictly self-appointed, and mean little at the Heavyweight/Open division. ​ada). WBA 9. Dainier Pero (The younger brother of Lenier). 14.Yoandy Toirac (Just 3-0 but he's matching tough). WBO 14. Vladyslav Sirenko (Just dropped a nod to Solomon Dacres) 15. Johnny Fisher (Lost rematch to David Allen) "where the title liniage is universally acknowledged and uncontested amongst boxing's historians" The information posted in this thread says otherwise. "The WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO, WBU, etc, are strictly self-appointed, and mean little at the Heavyweight/Open division." That is obviously nonsense and will remain nonsense, no matter how many times you say it.