Lineal Heavyweight title is "bull****"?

[Marchegiano]

riiiiiiight, so...

one man, punching another man... with his fists... while evading the other mans blows... back then

is totally unrelated to... one man, punching another man... with his fists... while evading the other mans blows... now



uh, I will go with the experts on that one

You'd be hard pressed to find an expert with higher credentials actually, and be able to speak to them. I am the man for ancient research amongst the IBRO.

And yes, you can say in vague terms they do the same thing, but, you said Dambe is not boxing because it allows more than punches, yes?

Find me an ancient sport limited to just punches, name me just one, let me prove to you the sport that is JUST punches came in the 1880s.


That picture of men punching each other in the face does not allude to rules, would you like me to teach them to you?

Not even the lineage I outlined is limited to just punches. It is not the line of who just punches, it is the line of who trained who for what and why until we got to this sport of just punches.



Like I say, find me a sport that is as limited as you claim:

one man, punching another man... with his fists... while evading the other mans blows... back then

Name it and I will show you proof it is not what you think and does not fit your own criteria for what is boxing. Nothing but current boxing does actually. And how we got to current boxing? The path I laid out that has nothing to do with ancient egyptian sport or festivals.

LPRR isn't even limited down to just punching and it was the last boxing before boxing. No one claims the bare knuckle boxers were not boxers because they did more than just punch and evade punches, but, Dambe is not boxing, not because it is a totally disconnected sport, but because kicking is not illegal? No bud, it's not boxing because despite being primarily a fist fight and having a glove they have nothing to do with the sport that evolved into boxing today just like those ancient Mesos and Africans had nothing to do with today's boxing.

[MEXICAN STYLE]

fck that fakeass title

[billeau2]

this is utterly ridiculous, look...

to remedy a problem of inaccuracy, within boxing... FANS (not anyone with a clue, just fans) instituted a solution that is (by your own admission)... inaccurate

what the fcuk... ?

so, instead of having 4 inaccurate opinions, you think we should have 5?



this is utterly ridiculous to me

in business... if you initiate a process or policy that is "inaccurate"... you get fired, and are deemed a failure

the Canelo example, and the Briggs example... should be enough of an indication of failure to end this discussion

I think ranking by lineage is utterly fkn ridiculous, and simply cannot be justified

we can agree to disagree

Agree to disagree

[billeau2]

When lineal champions abuse the honor, people rightfully get emotional. Fury sitting out so long and fighting so many lowly regarded opponents since his return has shined a bright light on the negatives of the lineal championship. So that's one reason why people are being emotional.

The other though is that Wilder is on the verge of becoming undisputed lineal champion (had he beaten Fury in 2018, there were some who would claim Fury wasn't lineal champion and they weren't the top 2 fighters to fill the vacancy). Joshua fans are feeling some type of way about Joshua having been knocked out and Wilder now potentially being the clear cut lineal champion. Drives them crazy.

That makes a lot of sense... Great post. The lineal is there when you need it and always colored by sentiment... But sentiment is not a negative IMO, it shows passion and interest. The fans should have a toolbox to express such sentiments. I mean its an easy equation to figure out lol... The man who beat the man. And even in arguments for who holds the title, they follow logically, at least they can be put in a logical order.

Yes, Joshua's situation colors the view because after all....it is the lineal title's fault he got KO'ed.

[billeau2]

Okay, I got you bud.




I had asked why you recognize divisional lineages under HW if you're well aware they all actually go to the HW division? HW splintered but it was not formal for years and so you've competing divisions for a time, I assumed you're aware. So I fathered the question by asking who you side with, or, how you decide where the start of a lineage that isn't HW is. I use LW as an example.

I understand the confusion, what I'm speaking to has little to do with the point you made, but, the vehicle you used to deliver that point made me curious of your opinions...it is an honest curiosity, I'm not leading into to an argument.



Marciano is still the lineal champion, as is Fury, as are Tunney, and Lennox. Marciano would have the ability to strip all those who came after him. If he, or Fury, cannot then why did Jim Corbett do just that?

Jim Corbett retired unbeaten. There were no bodies at the time and boxing was ruled by "champions prerogative". Which in this case means it was Corbett's job to list the guys who would fight for his title. He chose his pupil Steve O'Donnell and fan favorite Peter Maher. Maher KO's O'Donnell, Corbett gives a farewell speech and hands over his title to Maher. Maher then gets KO'd by Fitzsimmons who loses by DQ to Tom Sharkey. Corbett returns to boxing, reclaimed his title without fighting anyone, and makes a fight with Fitzs, Fitzs KO's him, Fitzs is champion. Maher and Sharkey are not now considered having ever been lineal champions despite being awarded the title after winning a fight.

CP would come again upon the retirement of Jeffries. He chose Root and Hart. Hart is still considered a champion. It isn't because Corbett chose Maher, it's because Corbett returned and claimed his title.

CP would also be used from James Figg's era through to Jeffries with the most notable abuser of it being Jem Ward who retired and reclaimed his title, stripping those who won it after him, no less than five times.

It was how the retirement of a lineal was dealt with prior to bodies.

I am curious, after this explanation, why it is you believe a lineal can be stripped for drugs or banned from the sport? Those are sanctioning body actions that have nothing to do and were never done prior to sanctioning bodies. What does lineal have to do with bodies? It's meant to be the title without body influence is it not? Forcing a champion to fight for his title upon his return rather than simply awarding it back to him upon his announcement for a return is a body action not a lineal action.

Looking to lineal traditions there is grounds for champions returning after retirement, stripping any who gained their title while they were away, and regaining recognition of their title without fighting, but, there is absolutely no lineal champion prior to sanctioning bodies who had ever been told they are not champion because they retired once. ever.


I'm not saying a champion should be able to retire and regain their title just by saying they want to work again. I'm saying that is the way it has been and adding body elements to the lineal just falsely grandizes the title while stripping the bodies of some of their few good traits.





As much as I ever did. It's not a body belt but it's better than Ring and TBRB nonsense. It's my favorite nonofficial and will be regardless of who has it.

Dude:

Your killin' me in a good way. Awesome post... Totally explains the basis for so much about the title that someone like myself would have no idea about.

Jem Mace is a perfect example of abuse regarding retirement clauses. Also the champion's perogative, very interesting.

So can we assume that there can be a situation, at least for a while, where there is more than one lineal? At least until it is resolved? or is that just not possible and does one have to designate the one?

Ill give a scenario: Fighter A is the lineal after beating the best. He retires very young, at 23. Now the first question becomes: can we now establish a new lineal INDEPENDENT of fighter A? I would assume that eventually we could?

With that assumption in mind, Fighter B becomes the best heavyweight by beating the rest, and also retires at a young Age, at the same age as fighter A.

Assuming fighter B could exist as the lineal, if they both came out of retirement with a new champ on the top, what would the status of the lineal be? You would have two formerly retired fighters, and one "best" fighter in the division.

[Marchegiano]

Dude:

Your killin' me in a good way. Awesome post... Totally explains the basis for so much about the title that someone like myself would have no idea about.

Jem Mace is a perfect example of abuse regarding retirement clauses. Also the champion's perogative, very interesting.

So can we assume that there can be a situation, at least for a while, where there is more than one lineal? At least until it is resolved? or is that just not possible and does one have to designate the one?

Ill give a scenario: Fighter A is the lineal after beating the best. He retires very young, at 23. Now the first question becomes: can we now establish a new lineal INDEPENDENT of fighter A? I would assume that eventually we could?

With that assumption in mind, Fighter B becomes the best heavyweight by beating the rest, and also retires at a young Age, at the same age as fighter A.

Assuming fighter B could exist as the lineal, if they both came out of retirement with a new champ on the top, what would the status of the lineal be? You would have two formerly retired fighters, and one "best" fighter in the division.

Yeah, pretty much from the get go there are claimants. Best I can figure historians designate lineal honors on one of the many claimants of a period after the fact.

The first succession crisis revolve around Figg himself. No one was bothered with Figg electing champions and that was more respected than beating the champion.

James 'The First' Figg - 1725

Robert 'The Pugilist' Whittaker - 1725

Nathaniel Peartree - 1726

John Gritton - 1727

Tom 'The Claimant' Pipes - 1730

Bill Gretting - 1730

Tom 'The Claimant' Pipes - 1730

Bill Gretting - 1732

Tom 'The Claimant' Pipes - 1733

George 'The Barber' Taylor - 1734

Jack 'The Father of Boxing' Broughton - 1736

Jack 'The Norfolk Butcher' Slack - 1750

So when Figg retired from the sport entirely there was a bit of a succession crisis because there was no absolute authority on who the champ is anymore. That's why Tom Pipes is called the Claimant. He claimed it on the grounds that he beat the man who beat the man going back to Figg's original choice. Gretting challenged this on the grounds he was Figg's best student. Or maybe I have their roles reversed it's not an important detail. Point is they fought over it and that's what really solidified who was champion.

Let's look at CBZ a sec:

James Figg the First Champion 1719 1730 retired
Tom Pipes the Claimant 1730 1734
George Taylor the Barber 1734 1736
Jack Broughton the Father of Boxing 1736 1750
Jack Slack the Norfolk Butcher 1750 1760

Notice the complete jump from Figg to Pipes? That's because CBZ is being simple with you. Figg is the authority in that time and still considered the best man if he would box but he did not box from 1725-1730 and instead he staged events with his chosen man against another of his pupils.

I list the best men of the era to highlight the succession or evolution championship honors while CBZ kind of covers it up and pretends like Figg was a fighting champion.

Pipes claims, Bill claims, at this time, when both men claim to be champion, before they actually fight, who is lineal? It is nice today to sit back and say it was vacant but back then it was a two choice matter, there could be no vacant. You can't have a vacant best man. Either Pipes was better or Gretting was, and you chose a side. So in the effect, yes, two champions at once.

Okay, Pipes settles the matter right? No, Figg dies, unrelated, just know that now it's not just he's retired from being the official authority but now he's dead so even his opinion is gone. This leaves room for a succession crisis again.

Gretting and Pipes did not fight one another exclusively for the title and Gretting himself would drop to Taylor while coming off a victory over Pipes. Man who beat the man then falls under Taylor says Taylor. Pipes says nope because Pipes' title wasn't on the line for that fight. Pipes chooses to fight Broughton, Jack wins, Taylor gives no ****s and continues to call himself champion and sell championship fights from his own venue. This is a first, all fights prior happened at Figg's.

Jack and Taylor have a bit of a promo war then the deal is struck, first of its kind, and the two claimants settle it in the ring. Broughton wins.

Every single name I mentioned so far is a Figg student.

Jack Slack is the first man to simply fight the champion, beat him, and be called champion for his trouble. Everyone else has a little bit of a story to go with their champion status.



Okay but that's all pretty because it all ends in one man every time so while we can say for a while there were two or more who were seen as rival champions it's pretty clear when they became the lineal champion.


Yes, but it sets the stage for guys like Jem Ward. early mid 1800s late 20s early 30s:

Jem bought his way into the title and fixed fights with a fella named Byrne to make himself look good. Then a new challenger rose up the ranks and so Jem, knowing he's a bit of a fraud and that this kid came to fight not get paid, retired. Did his thing where he picks two to fight for his title. Of course the young bruiser Ward was avoiding would win. Jem would unretire and strip the young James Burke of his honors, and continue to not fight.

Ward used Englishness as an excuse until it was well known James was from London.

Ward used money as a reason until Burke worked enough and saved enough to buy a fight. Ward took the money but never fought.

Ward brought in his good friend Simon Byrne, Burke fought him for the vacancy, and unfortunately killed the man. Ward used that as an excuse to unretire and keep his title from Burke.

In the end, Jem Ward was never stripped nor did he fight Burke but Jame Deaf un Burke is considered a lineal by CBZ/TBRB and such.

Because after the death of Byrne Burke was harassed from his nation to America and in America he'd find waiting for him Sam O'Rourke, the Irish champion. Burke beats Sam and is considered a champion ever since. Also, first HW title fight in the US.

Now, when you look at CBZ for dates it'll look like Jem just retired and Burke just fought for a vacant title against the irish champ, which would be normal protocol for that period. It was usually the English champ's pupil against the Irish champ. That's not at all what actually happened and Jem Ward's retirement doesn't actually take place until William Thompson beat Burke in 1839.

Upon the retirement of Bendigo Burke was matched with Nick Ward, Jem's brother, who won by way of his gang forcing the ref to DQ Burke.


So yes, there are two lineals at once during some periods that could have really used authority.

The Ward gang basically held the title hostage from 1831-1839 and so many, many, many fans were split which is why CBZ's listed dates kind of argue with their dates on the guys-in-question's records.

Jem Ward the Black Diamond 1827 1832
James Burke the Deaf 'Un 1833 1839
William Thompson Bendigo 1839 1840

Isn't at all the truth. The truth is from 1831-1839 Jem Ward and Deaf Burke were both considered champions by most. You could not strip Ward his title without him losing but you could not deny he ducked Burke and so did not take on all challengers where as Burke would fight anyone, anywhere, to prove he was the best. Periods where Ward was officially retired were periods when Burke was the champion. Anytime Ward came back Ward was the champion. Ward never handed over his physical title to Burke, only when Bendigo won did Ward hand over the title. Considering Bendigo beat Burke for it, Ward kind of validated Burke there at the end.


So, for your example, I'd say the first lineal strips all other lineals after him when he returns, and, that act is the sole form of stripping lineal as ever known. A previous lineal champion reactivating his career is the only way to strip a lineal champion by traditional means.

But, let's pretend A and B clear house at the same damn time, both claim championship, they do not fight, who is champion? I'd say both men get the honor of best. Or like the k2 era.....to call Wlad lineal because of the 1 and 2 ranking nonsense is just nonsense, there are no ranks in lineal. Wlad and Vitali co-champed an era and that's the GD truth.


Let's look at less confrontational or argumentative history for co-champions.

First up we have the Tom-Tom fight of 1808. I'll do it quick; Tom Molineaux from the US fights Tom Cribb from England. The English crowd cheats for Cribb, Cribb was KO'd but the crowd rushed the ring and did not allow a count, also the beat Moly a bit. Cribb wins but the English Fancy feels bad about Moly getting screwed over by gang violence and crown him champion as well. Both men would receive belts. Cribb got his first as it was made before the fight and Moly got his after. They were both seen as the champions.


And again with Tom Sayers and John C. Heenan. Once again US-UK fight, the US fighter, John, was starting to take over the match, the English crowd, like with Cribb-Moly before, intervened and stopped the fight, both John and Tom walk away with championships of the world. Tom came in with one so John got a duplicate of Sayers' belt.

Heenan got screwed over later by King....same as with Cribb again. John actually KO'd Tom King but the English did not allow a count and so King was revived and allowed to continue until John gave up.

Yeah, I'd go to bat for co-champion. It's just the truth. The five years Figg chose guys to fight for him Figg was only the authority of the champion, not the fighter, that was Bob, Nat, John and so on until Broughton vs Taylor.

1808-10, Tom Cribb - Tom Molineaux

1831-39, James Burke - Jem Ward

1860-63, Tom Sayers - John C. Heenan

[billeau2]

Yeah, pretty much from the get go there are claimants. Best I can figure historians designate lineal honors on one of the many claimants of a period after the fact.

The first succession crisis revolve around Figg himself. No one was bothered with Figg electing champions and that was more respected than beating the champion.

James 'The First' Figg - 1725

Robert 'The Pugilist' Whittaker - 1725

Nathaniel Peartree - 1726

John Gritton - 1727

Tom 'The Claimant' Pipes - 1730

Bill Gretting - 1730

Tom 'The Claimant' Pipes - 1730

Bill Gretting - 1732

Tom 'The Claimant' Pipes - 1733

George 'The Barber' Taylor - 1734

Jack 'The Father of Boxing' Broughton - 1736

Jack 'The Norfolk Butcher' Slack - 1750

So when Figg retired from the sport entirely there was a bit of a succession crisis because there was no absolute authority on who the champ is anymore. That's why Tom Pipes is called the Claimant. He claimed it on the grounds that he beat the man who beat the man going back to Figg's original choice. Gretting challenged this on the grounds he was Figg's best student. Or maybe I have their roles reversed it's not an important detail. Point is they fought over it and that's what really solidified who was champion.

Let's look at CBZ a sec:

James Figg the First Champion 1719 1730 retired
Tom Pipes the Claimant 1730 1734
George Taylor the Barber 1734 1736
Jack Broughton the Father of Boxing 1736 1750
Jack Slack the Norfolk Butcher 1750 1760

Notice the complete jump from Figg to Pipes? That's because CBZ is being simple with you. Figg is the authority in that time and still considered the best man if he would box but he did not box from 1725-1730 and instead he staged events with his chosen man against another of his pupils.

I list the best men of the era to highlight the succession or evolution championship honors while CBZ kind of covers it up and pretends like Figg was a fighting champion.

Pipes claims, Bill claims, at this time, when both men claim to be champion, before they actually fight, who is lineal? It is nice today to sit back and say it was vacant but back then it was a two choice matter, there could be no vacant. You can't have a vacant best man. Either Pipes was better or Gretting was, and you chose a side. So in the effect, yes, two champions at once.

Okay, Pipes settles the matter right? No, Figg dies, unrelated, just know that now it's not just he's retired from being the official authority but now he's dead so even his opinion is gone. This leaves room for a succession crisis again.

Gretting and Pipes did not fight one another exclusively for the title and Gretting himself would drop to Taylor while coming off a victory over Pipes. Man who beat the man then falls under Taylor says Taylor. Pipes says nope because Pipes' title wasn't on the line for that fight. Pipes chooses to fight Broughton, Jack wins, Taylor gives no ****s and continues to call himself champion and sell championship fights from his own venue. This is a first, all fights prior happened at Figg's.

Jack and Taylor have a bit of a promo war then the deal is struck, first of its kind, and the two claimants settle it in the ring. Broughton wins.

Every single name I mentioned so far is a Figg student.

Jack Slack is the first man to simply fight the champion, beat him, and be called champion for his trouble. Everyone else has a little bit of a story to go with their champion status.



Okay but that's all pretty because it all ends in one man every time so while we can say for a while there were two or more who were seen as rival champions it's pretty clear when they became the lineal champion.


Yes, but it sets the stage for guys like Jem Ward. early mid 1800s late 20s early 30s:

Jem bought his way into the title and fixed fights with a fella named Byrne to make himself look good. Then a new challenger rose up the ranks and so Jem, knowing he's a bit of a fraud and that this kid came to fight not get paid, retired. Did his thing where he picks two to fight for his title. Of course the young bruiser Ward was avoiding would win. Jem would unretire and strip the young James Burke of his honors, and continue to not fight.

Ward used Englishness as an excuse until it was well known James was from London.

Ward used money as a reason until Burke worked enough and saved enough to buy a fight. Ward took the money but never fought.

Ward brought in his good friend Simon Byrne, Burke fought him for the vacancy, and unfortunately killed the man. Ward used that as an excuse to unretire and keep his title from Burke.

In the end, Jem Ward was never stripped nor did he fight Burke but Jame Deaf un Burke is considered a lineal by CBZ/TBRB and such.

Because after the death of Byrne Burke was harassed from his nation to America and in America he'd find waiting for him Sam O'Rourke, the Irish champion. Burke beats Sam and is considered a champion ever since. Also, first HW title fight in the US.

Now, when you look at CBZ for dates it'll look like Jem just retired and Burke just fought for a vacant title against the irish champ, which would be normal protocol for that period. It was usually the English champ's pupil against the Irish champ. That's not at all what actually happened and Jem Ward's retirement doesn't actually take place until William Thompson beat Burke in 1839.

Upon the retirement of Bendigo Burke was matched with Nick Ward, Jem's brother, who won by way of his gang forcing the ref to DQ Burke.


So yes, there are two lineals at once during some periods that could have really used authority.

The Ward gang basically held the title hostage from 1831-1839 and so many, many, many fans were split which is why CBZ's listed dates kind of argue with their dates on the guys-in-question's records.

Jem Ward the Black Diamond 1827 1832
James Burke the Deaf 'Un 1833 1839
William Thompson Bendigo 1839 1840

Isn't at all the truth. The truth is from 1831-1839 Jem Ward and Deaf Burke were both considered champions by most. You could not strip Ward his title without him losing but you could not deny he ducked Burke and so did not take on all challengers where as Burke would fight anyone, anywhere, to prove he was the best. Periods where Ward was officially retired were periods when Burke was the champion. Anytime Ward came back Ward was the champion. Ward never handed over his physical title to Burke, only when Bendigo won did Ward hand over the title. Considering Bendigo beat Burke for it, Ward kind of validated Burke there at the end.


So, for your example, I'd say the first lineal strips all other lineals after him when he returns, and, that act is the sole form of stripping lineal as ever known. A previous lineal champion reactivating his career is the only way to strip a lineal champion by traditional means.

But, let's pretend A and B clear house at the same damn time, both claim championship, they do not fight, who is champion? I'd say both men get the honor of best. Or like the k2 era.....to call Wlad lineal because of the 1 and 2 ranking nonsense is just nonsense, there are no ranks in lineal. Wlad and Vitali co-champed an era and that's the GD truth.


Let's look at less confrontational or argumentative history for co-champions.

First up we have the Tom-Tom fight of 1808. I'll do it quick; Tom Molineaux from the US fights Tom Cribb from England. The English crowd cheats for Cribb, Cribb was KO'd but the crowd rushed the ring and did not allow a count, also the beat Moly a bit. Cribb wins but the English Fancy feels bad about Moly getting screwed over by gang violence and crown him champion as well. Both men would receive belts. Cribb got his first as it was made before the fight and Moly got his after. They were both seen as the champions.


And again with Tom Sayers and John C. Heenan. Once again US-UK fight, the US fighter, John, was starting to take over the match, the English crowd, like with Cribb-Moly before, intervened and stopped the fight, both John and Tom walk away with championships of the world. Tom came in with one so John got a duplicate of Sayers' belt.

Heenan got screwed over later by King....same as with Cribb again. John actually KO'd Tom King but the English did not allow a count and so King was revived and allowed to continue until John gave up.

Yeah, I'd go to bat for co-champion. It's just the truth. The five years Figg chose guys to fight for him Figg was only the authority of the champion, not the fighter, that was Bob, Nat, John and so on until Broughton vs Taylor.

1808-10, Tom Cribb - Tom Molineaux

1831-39, James Burke - Jem Ward

1860-63, Tom Sayers - John C. Heenan

You know how when you are used to an issue, it does not seem so important? In many martial arts lineages disputes automatically arise when the founder passes. Its par for the course, usually resulting in a new branch of the art in question. In Japanese arts, the most strictly regulated, there are even descriptions of how the art is passed, transmitted. Most of these are for the oldest arts, where Menkyo Kudan refers to direct transmission from the lineage holder to the next in line. This was traditionally used on a battle field, among other places, when a mortally wounded Samurai would orally pass the art to a successor.

One point I was trying to make to others was that the way the art is transmitted is not related to how effectively transmitted the art primae facea is... so an oral transmission can be an effective means of transmission as much as any other method...and these are very regulated historically viable transmissions that are all documented in the scrolls of these schools.

Effective to many is related to many factors which to my mind do not factor into transmitting a title or an art. What is important is that there is some record of these transmissions. Otherwise it is heresay and little else.

What I so appreciate about your research is that you create a historical basis for title transmissions. i must confess that I am still undecided about how much an issue of abuse figures into the effectiveness of a title held. I just know from comparative situations what really makes a difference validating a title.

I also confess that what I find so ingenious about the lineal is that it is self validating. When you recite the order of champions that held it, that is all the verification one needs. It makes it so much more simple than looking at scrolls, and trying to authenticate them. And OH!! how these scrolls are abused! Collectors buy them and own the art despite never having learned the art. Ridiculous. In Japanese arts when the line of transmission is broken in any generation it is kind of like the minute you drive a new car off the lot and it loses most of its value.

[aboutfkntime]

You'd be hard pressed to find an expert with higher credentials actually, and be able to speak to them. I am the man for ancient research amongst the IBRO.

And yes, you can say in vague terms they do the same thing, but, you said Dambe is not boxing because it allows more than punches, yes?

Find me an ancient sport limited to just punches, name me just one, let me prove to you the sport that is JUST punches came in the 1880s.


That picture of men punching each other in the face does not allude to rules, would you like me to teach them to you?

Not even the lineage I outlined is limited to just punches. It is not the line of who just punches, it is the line of who trained who for what and why until we got to this sport of just punches.



Like I say, find me a sport that is as limited as you claim:



Name it and I will show you proof it is not what you think and does not fit your own criteria for what is boxing. Nothing but current boxing does actually. And how we got to current boxing? The path I laid out that has nothing to do with ancient egyptian sport or festivals.

LPRR isn't even limited down to just punching and it was the last boxing before boxing. No one claims the bare knuckle boxers were not boxers because they did more than just punch and evade punches, but, Dambe is not boxing, not because it is a totally disconnected sport, but because kicking is not illegal? No bud, it's not boxing because despite being primarily a fist fight and having a glove they have nothing to do with the sport that evolved into boxing today just like those ancient Mesos and Africans had nothing to do with today's boxing.

nah... punching another man in the face, while ensuring that he does not punch you in the face... likely goes back to the dawn of time

according to the experts anyway

[soul_survivor]

Okay, I got you bud.

I had asked why you recognize divisional lineages under HW if you're well aware they all actually go to the HW division?

I recognise a lineage...what has that got to do with the hw division or otherwise. Are you under the impression that I don't recognise Fury's once held claim to the lineage? Of course I do.

If we are going to go off the topic of this thread and talk about my position on Tyson Fury, it is very simple. He was Lineal Champion when he beat Wlad, the timeline of events after that mean he is no longer lineal champion in my eyes and should not be in the eyes of astute, intelligent, well educated and unbiased boxing fan. Why?

Well, Fury was scheduled for a rematch against Wlad. The fight did not happen as Fury initially claimed he had hurt his ankle. He was then seen partying and getting drunk. He released photos of his injured and bruised ankle. However, from then on, things went down hill pretty fast. His comments almost immediately after the Wlad win (on ****sexuality, pedophilia and the end of the world) had already made him a pariah. His actions regarding drugs, soon to be exposed drug use and the failed drug tests in the build up to the Klitschko bout led him to be investigated by UKAD. As per their procedure, he was banned from the sport.

During this time, Fury also claimed he had retired and refused to speak on the drug testing issue. Retirement and being banned from a sport stop any one, in any sport from being a champion. If you claim the lineal championship is different and does not adhere to those rules, regulations and historic laws, then fine as the lineal championship is an imaginary, largely non-existent entity which became more pertinent in the years following Ali and the split of the heavyweight title in various stages in the late 70s and early 80s.

However, if one is to claim that Fury is still a champion after all that, then he is arguably the worst champion in the history of the division came three years after the win over Wlad against an overweight cruiserweight who was actually only a part time boxer. This is far worse than anything Dempsey or Louis accomplished. His other defences include Pianeta, Wilder, Schwarz and Wallin.

This is the worst line up of defences for a lineal champion the sport has ever seen and may ever see. All the while, there is a man named Anthony Joshua who has all but cleared out the division, holds 3 belts, has regained them and become better. His only two viable opponents he hasnt beaten are Fury and Wilder themselves...yet Wilder has seemed reluctant to face him and Fury is only in his second year of comeback and yet to fight anyone of worthy who is not Wilder.

The claim that Wlder v Fury should have had any other significance than being for the WBC strap is bogus. The fact that Fury should even get that shot above a fighter like Dillian WHyte is an absolute fraud. It was used initially as a marketing tool because everyone knows teh WBC strap has been badly relegated during Wilder's time and the ifght had to be promoted with some sort of prestige.

To make matters worse, Fury is supposedly the number one ranked hw according to The Ring and Wilder at two. On what basis is Fury ranked number one when he barely got past Schwarz and has not held a world class win in 5 plus years? On what boxing basis is Wilder number two and above AJ, who has a better resume which even Wilder's hardest of hard core fan would not disagree.

The idea of lineal champion is being used in this instance as nothing more than marketing tool and most casuals eat it up (it still does not make the fight a smash hit and AJ is still by far the biggest star in the sport) and those who are fans of Wilder, blinded by their hate, maybe based on nationality, ethnicity, I don't know what because it is not boxing, eat it up also.

You can do with that what you want, but until Fury backs up his words and fights AJ or Wilder looks to unify with AJ, neither of them is the real heavyweight champion. YOu are free to give them titles of lineal, WBC or whatever else.

That is my opinion on the idea of Fury being a champion. Heck, call him lineal champion if you like but he has a worse set of defences than Shannon Briggs.

I have edited and removed most of your post. I am answering your first and most pertinent question.

The rest of your post is filled with a lot of confusion and misunderstanding about historical situations which you can start a thread of your own about.

[N/A]

Yes, Joshua's situation colors the view because after all....it is the lineal title's fault he got KO'ed.

Joshua has been great for boxing. We have millions of new fans thanks to him. But it also means a lot of his fans are very casual in nature, new to the sport, and have no idea what the lineal title is or why it's been considered so important for so long, especially at heavyweight.

These are people who think the IBO is a world title. If Joshua was lineal champion, they'd be talking about how important it is. Joshua's promoter prominently features the Ring Magazine belt whenever one of his fighter's hold it, even though most promoters ignore it. I guarantee you if Joshua was Ring champion Hearn would be talking every day about how it's the most important belt.