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

[Marchegiano]

That's a clever sounding post which will no doubt intimidate many of the mediocre IQ residents on this forum. But it presupposes an authority within boxing which can't be justified. You could make a more tentative claim of a strong consensus around a World Heavyweight Championship, but that's it. No amount of historical research, interesting as it may be, or appeals to your own authority (less interesting) can overcome that fundamental issue.

It's akin to claiming there is an absolute morality or that a certain state has an abstract "right to exist" - ridiculous notions.

Yeah bro, a lot of these guys will have read my breakdown of lineal back when Tyson claimed it. The only real way to cover it is to make an attempt at covering all the could-be's and even then you're going to damn well hear new could-be's in no time. You can't really say is or is not, you can say your opinion and share all the info that supports it but there is no is or is not.

Historically all you can do is say there is or is not precedence for that then cite said precedence, but there are no rules, there is no authority, most of the "lineal" champions never heard the term lineal in their career.

That said, and learned man who wants to claim authority has my blessing. Especially since Willow knows me and knows I will check him on any inaccuracy, half truth, propaganda, or any other form of misrepresenting history. I doubt his goal is misrepresentation, which begs, on what grounds does he have more authority than any other researched man? Given, for all those credentials, it was still a user going by Marchegiano who wrote the most complete list of HW champions in history. So, all those credentials can't equate to knowing or even being knowledgeable in all eras so on what grounds ... get me?

I am interested in knowing his angle, I think it might in fact be clever and even agreeable despite the nature of the promotion.

[dan-b]

Vitali would've left Wladimir in a bodying, so saying Wladimir was lineal was laughable at best.

Some people claimed a new lineage was established after Vitali beat Sanders. So that's another complication in all of this.

[_Rexy_]

They actually had
1. Anthony Joshua
2. Luis Ortiz
3. Deontay Wilder
4. Joseph Parker
5. Kubrat Pulev

They had ranked Klitschko up to the prior November but made the decision to unrank him as he didn't have a fight scheduled after the Fury fight had finally fallen apart. That was actually incorrect - the WBA had sanctioned his fight against Joshua a week earlier - it was only formally announced after Joshua beat Molina a month later.

After the Joshua v Klitschko fight TBRB's rankings were:

1. Anthony Joshua
2. Wladimir Klitschko
3. Luis Ortiz
4. Deontay Wilder
5. Joseph Parker

They clearly considered them to be top 2.

The point is that there is debate. There are different claims. And there is no single body that gets to arbitrate between them. TBRB nor Ring have that status.

If someone wants to argue that they weren't 1-2 then fair enough.

I still think i's a bit rich calling Fury v Wilder 2 a consensus top 2. TBRB rated them that way but it was very generous to Fury, whose best win in his comeback career at that point was Wallin.

Putting him there AFTER the fact doesn't matter. He was un ranked. You can't say "well he was ranked after, so with hindsight he WOULD have been ranked." He was unranked because he was inactive after 2 years. The WBA breaking their own rules by sanctioning the fight doesn't prove anything either. (an unranked fighter getting a shot at a vacant title in a unification fight...unheard of)

So 2 months prior to the fight, TBRB has

1. Povetkin
2 Joshua
3 Ortiz
4 Wilder
5 Parker

and going into the fight, TBRB has

1. Joshua
2. Ortiz
3. Wilder
4. Parker
5. Pulev

What both of those have in common, is that Wlad isn't listed. He was stripped of everything for sitting at home for two years. You say that it was generous to put Fury at #1 for beating Wilder...fine. Was it generous to put AJ at #1 for having beaten MOLINA?!?

[_Rexy_]

Some people claimed a new lineage was established after Vitali beat Sanders. So that's another complication in all of this.

I've never seen that. Usually the claim is that Wlad started a new lineage with his win over Chagaev

[Willow The Wisp]

That's a clever sounding post which will no doubt intimidate many of the mediocre IQ residents on this forum. But it presupposes an authority within boxing which can't be justified. You could make a more tentative claim of a strong consensus around a World Heavyweight Championship, but that's it. No amount of historical research, interesting as it may be, or appeals to your own authority (less interesting) can overcome that fundamental issue.

It's akin to claiming there is an absolute morality or that a certain state has an abstract "right to exist" - ridiculous notions.

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.

[dan-b]

Shall I go on?

You didn't start. You just used a lot of words to completely talk past my point. If your aim is to use a lot of theatrical language and irrelevant trivia to impress an audience who doesn't know better then we have nothing further to say to each other.

To use another analogy: you're arguing the Bible to an atheist. The atheist rejects the entire premise so arguing about one book within it is a waste of time.

[Toffee]

Putting him there AFTER the fact doesn't matter. He was un ranked. You can't say "well he was ranked after, so with hindsight he WOULD have been ranked." He was unranked because he was inactive after 2 years. The WBA breaking their own rules by sanctioning the fight doesn't prove anything either. (an unranked fighter getting a shot at a vacant title in a unification fight...unheard of)

So 2 months prior to the fight, TBRB has

1. Povetkin
2 Joshua
3 Ortiz
4 Wilder
5 Parker

and going into the fight, TBRB has

1. Joshua
2. Ortiz
3. Wilder
4. Parker
5. Pulev

What both of those have in common, is that Wlad isn't listed. He was stripped of everything for sitting at home for two years. You say that it was generous to put Fury at #1 for beating Wilder...fine. Was it generous to put AJ at #1 for having beaten MOLINA?!?

You're missing the point. TBRB don't decide. Though I've told you the reasons they gave as to why he was actually unranked and why I believe it was in error.

And it doesn't matter whether I believe Joshua was 1 in April 2017. Though, yes, I think his record put him ahead of Wilder, Ortiz, Parker and Pulev.

Nor does it matter whether I believe Fury was top 2 in Feb 2020. The point is there are legitimate arguments for and against.

Lineal, if it exists, is supposed to be above all that. You remove all doubt in creating a new lineage. No-one has done that.

[paulf]

The lineal thing has always been a joke. There's no such thing - once you start asking questions the entire concept collapses.

Tyson Fury retired because he was due to be stripped for failing multiple drug tests. And he was retired. For years. He was not a champion of any kind when he came back and fought a series of unranked no-hopers.

If Lennox Lewis comes out of retirement to fight Jake Paul, is that for the lineal title? No one beat LL. He retired. Did lineal end there? If not, then Lewis-Paul would be for the lineal title.

[hogey]

The Lineal title died when the Rock retired, the whole thing is now just a gimmick thought up by Frank Warren.

[Willow The Wisp]

You didn't start. You just used a lot of words to completely talk past my point. If your aim is to use a lot of theatrical language and irrelevant trivia to impress an audience who doesn't know better then we have nothing further to say to each other.

To use another analogy: you're arguing the Bible to an atheist. The atheist rejects the entire premise so arguing about one book within it is a waste of time.

It's just my opinion and nothing more, but that's a misaligned analogy and a specious argument. Somehow, presumably for the sake of trying your hand as a debater, you've cornered yourself into arguing that the heavyweight championship lineage is unofficial or "mythical" because some profiteering sanctioning body ("authority within boxing", as you put it) has presented an alternative champion?

Then in support of your argument, you used the claim that "Some people claimed a new lineage was established after Vitali beat Sanders. So that's another complication in all of this". Who claimed that? (Reference). Ive just never heard it before. Wlad hit far more contenders and gathered up the belts, leaving his brother alone.

When Tunney, Marciano and Lewis retired and never came back, there was no pushback to how the line was mended from anywhere.

Now you seem like a nice, bright kid with some good posts here and I've no wish to exchange barbs with you. But long establised, carefully documented world history, about any given topic, is not at all the same thing as "irrelevant trivia".

Even so, you have the right to feel like you do, and I enjoy your posts.