How did the running joke "doe" originate?

[original zero]

You're denying the fact that Fury is the real HW champ, well he's and took the lineage from Klit.

#1 - Fury retired. Retirement ends your reign as lineal champion.

#2 - Klitschko never unified the WBC & WBA titles, the historical way to establish lineage. Further, Klitschko never faced his brother, who was regarded as the better fighter. Klitschko's claim to new lineage based on the victory over Chagaev was a very weak claim.

[dibzvincent143]

It was with broner i think hahaha when guerrero approached him for a fightt

[techliam]

#1 - Fury retired. Retirement ends your reign as lineal champion.

#2 - Klitschko never unified the WBC & WBA titles, the historical way to establish lineage. Further, Klitschko never faced his brother, who was regarded as the better fighter. Klitschko's claim to new lineage based on the victory over Chagaev was a very weak claim.

Fury hasn't officially retired, hence places like the RING, CBZ and even Boxingscene still recognise the lineage.

IF you don't recognise Wlad/Chagaev has the start of the lineage, that's fine. But you can't discredit Wlad/Povetkin.

WBC/WBA unification being the 'historical way' to start lineages ... please tell us why the historical way (if it even is the case) still applies now? I put it to you that, historically, the WBC/WBA champions usually were the best two fighters. But presently, thats often not the case. The lack of importance of a specific title is fully highlighted.

Here's a few examples were (universally recognised) lineages were not also WBA/WBC unifications:

Garcia/Matthysse, Crawford/Postol, Wlad/Povetkin, Pacquiao/Bradley, Donaire/Rigondeaux, Adamek/Cunningham, Norris/Vaden, Pedroza/Lastra, Crawford/Beltran

Theres plenty more. You'll find the WBC title isn't even at stake in some of those examples. Having seen a few of your posts, I know exactly what your agenda is, though I'd still like to hear your thoughts.

[BillyBoxing]

#1 - Fury retired. Retirement ends your reign as lineal champion.

#2 - Klitschko never unified the WBC & WBA titles, the historical way to establish lineage. Further, Klitschko never faced his brother, who was regarded as the better fighter. Klitschko's claim to new lineage based on the victory over Chagaev was a very weak claim.

A bunch of trash you write here isn't it?

His brother really retired, unlike Fury, and Wlad was the best out there once his brotha retired had he beaten the rest of the top 4 Haye and Povetkin.

[-Kev-]

Broner got in trouble, his fans said he's still young and can change.

He got in trouble again, the anti-Broner fans mocked Broner fans by saying "he young doe".

[original zero]

Fury hasn't officially retired, hence places like the RING, CBZ and even Boxingscene still recognise the lineage.

Tyson Fury publicly announced his retirement.

https://twitter.com/Tyson_Fury/status/782911970966138880

The second that tweet is sent, he's no longer the lineal champion (assuming he ever was to begin with).

Ring Magazine has absolutely nothing to do with the lineal title. Their rules have nothing to do with the lineal title. They're owned by Golden Boy Promotions now and make up the rules as they go along.

Boxing Scene recognizes the IBO as a world championship (because the IBO pays them to do so) and shouldn't be trusted when it comes to who is and isn't a world champion.

CBZ loses their credibility in 2009 when they established new lineage with Chagaev. Everybody had Vitali ranked above Chagaev. Everybody. There wasn't a person on this planet, other than Chagaev's mother, who thought Wladimir vs Chagaev was a battle of the world's top two heavyweights.

IF you don't recognise Wlad/Chagaev has the start of the lineage, that's fine. But you can't discredit Wlad/Povetkin.

Yes I can. Vitali wasn't retired yet and was still the best heavyweight in the world. Not to mention your precious Ring Magazine had Pulev rated higher than Povetkin, so Wladimir vs Povetkin wasn't a battle of #1 & #2 either.

People are so desperate to crown and maintain a lineal champion that they'll start bending and breaking the rules to fit their needs. It makes you no better than the sanctioning bodies.

WBC/WBA unification being the 'historical way' to start lineages ... please tell us why the historical way (if it even is the case) still applies now? I put it to you that, historically, the WBC/WBA champions usually were the best two fighters. But presently, thats often not the case. The lack of importance of a specific title is fully highlighted.

Had nothing to do with who the best fighters were and everything to do with UNIVERSAL RECOGNITION as champion of the world. Whether it was NYSAC/IBU/NBA back in the day, or the WBC & WBA that the NYSAC/IBU/NBA morphed into, lineage started with an undisputed champion.

If someone wanted to argue that it's too difficult to gain universal recognition now due to the four belt era, that's fine, but unifying the WBC & WBA (and NBA/NYSAC before that) is still how the previous champions established lineage. You start with universal recognition and you remain champion until you lose even if you are stripped by everybody.

But when you start trying to fill vacancies with non-title fights between #2 and #5, like Ring Magazine now allows, you're just inventing champions out of thin air. There is no universal recognition or agreement. Which is why the lineal championship has become so irrelevant in boxing. Because people like you in a desperate panic to fill vacancies chose to ignore the core tenets of the concept, rendering the entire idea meaningless.