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

[Willow The Wisp]

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.

Ask away. How else are you going to learn?

[dan-b]

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.

First page of this thread I made very clear that I don't think the alternative is corrupt sanctioning bodies. The idea of a "heavyweight championship" is probably already tenuous. A number one in a division can possibly be established at a given time, but boxing likes the idea of lineage (however defined). I suppose that comes from the impracticality of getting boxing's top ten to fight each other frequently enough, so it's more straightforward to have a "champ" to beat so the distinction can be passed on efficiently.

As for the Klitschko - Sanders lineage argument, I think it was made by the (now redundant) Boxing's True Champs website back in the day. The argument being Vitali was the last to have fought Lewis and Sanders was sufficiently rated to warrant it. Probably not a strong argument and if no one else made it I'll gladly have it stricken from the record.

[Willow The Wisp]

First page of this thread I made very clear that I don't think the alternative is corrupt sanctioning bodies. The idea of a "heavyweight championship" is probably already tenuous. A number one in a division can possibly be established at a given time, but boxing likes the idea of lineage (however defined). I suppose that comes from the impracticality of getting boxing's top ten to fight each other frequently enough, so it's more straightforward to have a "champ" to beat so the distinction can be passed on efficiently.

As for the Klitschko - Sanders lineage argument, I think it was made by the (now redundant) Boxing's True Champs website back in the day. The argument being Vitali was the last to have fought Lewis and Sanders was sufficiently rated to warrant it. Probably not a strong argument and if no one else made it I'll gladly have it stricken from the record.

I like it .

[kafkod]

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.

"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 dis*****g 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, dis*****g 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.

[Willow The Wisp]

"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 dis*****g 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, dis*****g 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/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.....

[kafkod]

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.

[Willow The Wisp]

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?

[Eff Pandas]

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.

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.

[Willow The Wisp]

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...ight-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.

[Eff Pandas]

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...ight-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.

But also words mean things. And lineal champion doesn't mean being the man who sorta beat the man who sorta beat the man who also sorta beat the man. It literally means the man who beat the man who beat the man. The concept doesn't work well in a sport with no real structure of passing the torch like boxing. Most divisions don't even have a lineal champion half as connected as HW cuz money runs boxing & historically money gravitates towards the HW division so it was easier to have the best new guy fight the best old guy. And its fine. I like the sorta kinda, its close enough, lineal belt. But a real lineal title is a bs concept that some boxing fans are too excited to talk about like ATG & P4P.