Comments Thread For: Tyson Fury: I'm Lineal Champ - My Status Goes Back a 100 Years

[tokon]

I’d be surprised if he was doing VADA. He tried to duck them in his last fight. CHEATER

I'm completely with you on this.

Credit to him as he showed fantastic fighting spirit in getting up from that knockdown against Wilder but his ban for PEDs makes all this "lineal" bull**** irrelevant.

I would rather give props to a fighter that lost his title in the ring over one who.lost it through cheating with drugs.

[Ray*]

Fury's last words on his deathbead will be "lineal doe"

[davefromvancouv]

Fury's lineal status is just as debatable as Ali's was after he retired and gave his blessing for Ellis and Frazier to fight for the lineal.

By your reckoning if Lewis comes out of retirement he's been lineal the whole time and none of this is relevant.

But I'll leave it there... if you can't see that your post is an opinion rather than a fact then I'm out of avenues.

There are opinions based on facts (i.e. who beat Klitschko when Klitschko was the lineal champion and, is he still active?) and opinions based on a non-existent rule that a temporary hiatus makes the lineal status vacant. And in some cases, there are people who just don't WANT Tyson Fury to be lineal champion because they want him to be punished for his indiscretions, and want to see Anthony Joshua become lineal without fighting Fury. Either way, I prefer to stick to what actually happened in the ring to determine who the lineal champion is. But that's me...

Ali's lineal status was only debatable for those who didn't WANT him to be the lineal champion at the time, mainly because of his anti-war stance and his Muslim faith. Now there are people, mainly Joshua fans, who reject Fury as the lineal champion. But nowhere in that
fightcity article you provided does it mention the lineal title, just the WBA belt and the RING belt. Funny thing about that RING: even THEY acknowledged that they were diverging from the lineage when they stripped Fury of the RING title (ringtv link):

https://www.******.com/527524-tyson-...drops-ratings/

"We deeply regret separating from the lineal championship and we would hope that fans appreciate our reasons for giving Tyson every opportunity over the past two years. We wish our former champion the very best for the future and we will be happy to re-rank him when appropriate."

[Toffee]

There are opinions based on facts (i.e. who beat Klitschko when Klitschko was the lineal champion and, is he still active?) and opinions based on a non-existent rule that a temporary hiatus makes the lineal status vacant. And in some cases, there are people who just don't WANT Tyson Fury to be lineal champion because they want him to be punished for his indiscretions, and want to see Anthony Joshua become lineal without fighting Fury. Either way, I prefer to stick to what actually happened in the ring to determine who the lineal champion is. But that's me...

Ali's lineal status was only debatable for those who didn't WANT him to be the lineal champion at the time, mainly because of his anti-war stance and his Muslim faith. Now there are people, mainly Joshua fans, who reject Fury as the lineal champion. But nowhere in that
fightcity article you provided does it mention the lineal title, just the WBA belt and the RING belt. Funny thing about that RING: even THEY acknowledged that they were diverging from the lineage when they stripped Fury of the RING title (ringtv link):

https://www.******.com/527524-tyson-...drops-ratings/

"We deeply regret separating from the lineal championship and we would hope that fans appreciate our reasons for giving Tyson every opportunity over the past two years. We wish our former champion the very best for the future and we will be happy to re-rank him when appropriate."

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse here. You make good points. You present your arguments well.

You just keep missing my point completely.

I'm not claiming Ali wasn't lineal, or Fury isn't lineal. I'm saying that the lineage is full of debate, right through history. You might be adamant that Ali was lineal right through to '71, but you'll find plenty of credible journalists who will argue a contrary view to yours on Ali and plenty of others that don't abide by your rules. I can't quite follow the arrogance of being 100% convinced that your opinion is the one true view out of many possibilities.

There are no hard and fast rules over lineal status. That's for the boxing organisations.

Go back through history and look at the times when the status wasn't 100%. Did Jeffries lose it when he retired or when Johnson beat him? If we allowed Jeffries 6 years to come back then how certain was the lineage when it was changing hands after Tunney's retirement? Did Charles win the vacant title or beat Louis for it?

This has gone right through history.

I could still dispute that fighting the #3 fighter (and by who's rankings?) qualifies you to take on lineal status.

If it did you could make a case for Joshua during Fury's retirement!

[davefromvancouv]

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse here. You make good points. You present your arguments well.

You just keep missing my point completely.

I'm not claiming Ali wasn't lineal, or Fury isn't lineal. I'm saying that the lineage is full of debate, right through history. You might be adamant that Ali was lineal right through to '71, but you'll find plenty of credible journalists who will argue a contrary view to yours on Ali and plenty of others that don't abide by your rules. I can't quite follow the arrogance of being 100% convinced that your opinion is the one true view out of many possibilities.

There are no hard and fast rules over lineal status. That's for the boxing organisations.

Go back through history and look at the times when the status wasn't 100%. Did Jeffries lose it when he retired or when Johnson beat him? If we allowed Jeffries 6 years to come back then how certain was the lineage when it was changing hands after Tunney's retirement? Did Charles win the vacant title or beat Louis for it?

This has gone right through history.

I could still dispute that fighting the #3 fighter (and by who's rankings?) qualifies you to take on lineal status.

If it did you could make a case for Joshua during Fury's retirement!

Actually, the boxing organizations have nothing to do with the lineage (other than forming a consensus on the #1 and #2 fighters in the division, as you so rightly pointed out in our previous discussions). The lineage has always been based on two simple rules, which have been twisted by biased fans of the sport for 134 years (that's where the debate comes in). But if you take bias out of it, it boils down to these two simple rules:

1. The consensus #1 and #2 fight for the lineal championship
2. The lineal champion either retires for good or loses the title in the ring

Simple, right? Not really, because it means a lineal champion can come back several times and keep the title hostage for as long as he wants, provided he stays undefeated. This is what Fury is likely to do for as long as he can.

So when you apply these rules to what actually happened in history, you get the following:

1. Jefferies lost the lineal title to Jack Johnson. Jefferies coming out of retirement nullified Marvin Hart's, Tommy Burns' and Jack Johnson's claim to the lineage (which was the whole point at the time), but Johnson became the true lineal champion anyway when he beat Jefferies.
2. Gene Tunney officially retired as the lineal champion. So Max Schmelling became the lineal champion when he beat Jack Sharkey by disqualification.
3. Ezzard Charles became the lineal champion when he beat Joe Louis.
4. Lennox Lewis became the lineal champion when he beat Shannon Briggs, which happened BEFORE he became undisputed.
5. Lennox Lewis officially retired as the lineal champion but Wladimir and Vitali Klitschko refused to fight each other so the lineal title remained vacant until Vitali retired and Wladimir beat #2 Povetkin
6. Fury became the lineal champion when he beat Klitschko

Since Fury is still fighting, he still holds the lineage. But that means Fury can do anything he wants. As long as he remains undefeated and Lennox Lewis DOESN'T come out of retirement, the lineage is in his hands. Now if Lewis DID come out of retirement, which is not likely to happen for the 53 year old ex-champion, that would effectively nullify Klitschko's and Fury's claim to the lineal title, which would be poetic justice for Fury. Klitschko and Fury would revert back to being ex-WBA/IBF/WBO/IBO champions...

I agree that few people follow these two simple rules for the lineage, which allows them to argue for their favorite fighter and decide who was, who can be and who can't be the lineal champion. But the history of what actually happened in the ring will always override people's biases...

[Toffee]

Actually, the boxing organizations have nothing to do with the lineage (other than forming a consensus on the #1 and #2 fighters in the division, as you so rightly pointed out in our previous discussions). The lineage has always been based on two simple rules, which have been twisted by biased fans of the sport for 134 years (that's where the debate comes in). But if you take bias out of it, it boils down to these two simple rules:

1. The consensus #1 and #2 fight for the lineal championship
2. The lineal champion either retires for good or loses the title in the ring

Simple, right? Not really, because it means a lineal champion can come back several times and keep the title hostage for as long as he wants, provided he stays undefeated. This is what Fury is likely to do for as long as he can.

So when you apply these rules to what actually happened in history, you get the following:

1. Jefferies lost the lineal title to Jack Johnson. Jefferies coming out of retirement nullified Marvin Hart's, Tommy Burns' and Jack Johnson's claim to the lineage (which was the whole point at the time), but Johnson became the true lineal champion anyway when he beat Jefferies.
2. Gene Tunney officially retired as the lineal champion. So Max Schmelling became the lineal champion when he beat Jack Sharkey by disqualification.
3. Ezzard Charles became the lineal champion when he beat Joe Louis.
4. Lennox Lewis became the lineal champion when he beat Shannon Briggs, which happened BEFORE he became undisputed.
5. Lennox Lewis officially retired as the lineal champion but Wladimir and Vitali Klitschko refused to fight each other so the lineal title remained vacant until Vitali retired and Wladimir beat #2 Povetkin
6. Fury became the lineal champion when he beat Klitschko

Since Fury is still fighting, he still holds the lineage. But that means Fury can do anything he wants. As long as he remains undefeated and Lennox Lewis DOESN'T come out of retirement, the lineage is in his hands. Now if Lewis DID come out of retirement, which is not likely to happen for the 53 year old ex-champion, that would effectively nullify Klitschko's and Fury's claim to the lineal title, which would be poetic justice for Fury. Klitschko and Fury would revert back to being ex-WBA/IBF/WBO/IBO champions...

I agree that few people follow these two simple rules for the lineage, which allows them to argue for their favorite fighter and decide who was, who can be and who can't be the lineal champion. But the history of what actually happened in the ring will always override people's biases...

Well at least I think we agree that not everyone applies the same rules and that the lineage has been in doubt at certain points in time (due to retirements and returns).

Still not convinced that Wlad ever actually became lineal under those rules. Surely Vitali was the concensus number 2 at that time?

I think it's comfortable to have Wlad as a lineal champ. He was the best for a long time and wouldn't (though not "couldn't") fight his brother. I also don't remember it ever being billed as for the lineal title. The other time he fought a number 3 was for the Ring belt (Chagaev) - though as we agree the lineal and Ring titles aren't necessarily the same thing.

So by those rules, it's vacant.

[davefromvancouv]

Well at least I think we agree that not everyone applies the same rules and that the lineage has been in doubt at certain points in time (due to retirements and returns).

Yes.

Still not convinced that Wlad ever actually became lineal under those rules. Surely Vitali was the concensus number 2 at that time?

No. Vitali had been retired for over a year when Wladimir fought #2 Povetkin, so Wladimir established himself as a true lineal champion during his 11 year reign.

I think it's comfortable to have Wlad as a lineal champ. He was the best for a long time and wouldn't (though not "couldn't") fight his brother. I also don't remember it ever being billed as for the lineal title. The other time he fought a number 3 was for the Ring belt (Chagaev) - though as we agree the lineal and Ring titles aren't necessarily the same thing.

So by those rules, it's vacant.

No. Wladimir's fight with #3 Chagaev made him the RING magazine champion and the consensus #1 heavyweight. In the minds of some, that was synonymous with being the lineal champion. But Wladimir's fight with #2 Povetkin left no doubt. Wladimir Klitschko established himself as the true lineal heavyweight champion of the world and Fury became the lineal champion when he beat him. Then, as you pointed out, when Fury stepped away from the sport to battle his drug addictions, some believed the lineal title to be vacant. But what happened in that ring in 2015 overrules any bias anybody may have about his lineal status. And Fury has successfully defended the lineal crown three times since coming back.

[Toffee]

No. Vitali had been retired for over a year when Wladimir fought #2 Povetkin, so Wladimir established himself as a true lineal champion during his 11 year reign.

But he hadn't. Vitali retired in December 2013, two months after the Povetkin fight. He was WBC Champ and number 2 to that point.

If it's really two simple rules, no subjectivity and no ambiguity... then the status is vacant.

[djcomplex]

nope he was recognised as lineal champion when he beat foreman, who beat, moorer, who beat holyfield,who beat douglas, who beat tyson, who beat spinks, who beat holmes, who beat ali... etc etc

[davefromvancouv]

But he hadn't. Vitali retired in December 2013, two months after the Povetkin fight. He was WBC Champ and number 2 to that point.

Correct. But what happened the following year? Wladimir went on to fight #2 Kubrat Pulev (http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Th..._Ratings:_2013) in November 2014, well after Vitali had "officially" retired in December 2013 (his last fight being in September 2012). So once again, Wladimir Klitschko had proven himself to be the true lineal champion during his 11 year reign and Fury beat him in 2015.

If it's really two simple rules, no subjectivity and no ambiguity... then the status is vacant.

It really is just two simple rules and Fury became the true lineal champion when he beat Wladimir Klitschko. And he still is, from an unbiased point of view.