Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Lineal (and true) World Heavyweight Title

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by HOUDINI563 View Post
    Lewis dominated the division and beat Briggs, who beat Foreman, who beat Moorer, who beat Holyfield, who beat Bowe, who beat Holyfield, who beat Douglas, who beat Tyson and so forth.

    I agree that since Lewis nailing down a lineal hwt champion is difficult. Wlads dominance is obvious but who did he beat to claim the lineal title? Many European nothings on his resume.
    The Chagev win is considered starting a new lineage since they were both #1 and #2 at the time (god the division was awful)

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by Ben Bolt View Post
      If we agree on that Wlad Klitschko won the vacant lineal title when defeating Ruslan Chagaev (as most find accurate), and the title went on to Tyson Fury after beating Wlad …

      Is Fury (the challenger coming out of retirement) vs Wilder (the alphabet champ) for the genuine world title?
      "Wladimir Klitschko W12 Alexander Povetkin (5 October 2013—Klitschhko and Povetkin were the top two Transnational-Ranked heavyweights at the time of this bout.)" -- TBRB...

      Edit: while Cyber Boxing Zone has it like you said: "Wladimir Klitschko 2009-2015, from his win over Chagaev"
      Last edited by MDPopescu; 11-09-2018, 04:33 AM.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by Tom Cruise View Post
        Wlad was basically undisputed. Once his brother retired he was clearly and unoquivically THE hw champ. not a single person on earth would tried to claim Stiverne was the HW champion.
        I disagree. To simply dismiss Stiverne's claim is a mistake.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by Scipio2009 View Post
          I disagree. To simply dismiss Stiverne's claim is a mistake.
          No, to claim Stiverne had any argument for being HW champion is just comical. Wlad was the HW champ. Except for Stivernes mum, everyone in the world knew who the HW champ was, it was Wlad.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by Ben Bolt View Post
            If we agree on that Wlad Klitschko won the vacant lineal title when defeating Ruslan Chagaev (as most find accurate), and the title went on to Tyson Fury after beating Wlad …

            Is Fury (the challenger coming out of retirement) vs Wilder (the alphabet champ) for the genuine world title?
            ... from what I've learned, both Cyber Boxing Zone and TBRB say that "the lineal" will be the winner of Wilder vs AJ...

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by Boksfan View Post
              I think Miller is the best therefore Big Baby is the Lineal champion of the world!
              And I say this about the Big Baby over a beer, to the bar full of fight fans, a cross section of well versed Mexicans who known the lighter division fighters impeccably, and of course the heavyweights, and the casuals who are learning where of course it all starts with the heavyweight champ of the world, and I say this to the various others and through everyone's opinion and understanding it emerges that Big Baby is talented but not the heavyweight champ of the world by any stretch and that the best is yet to be determined...and that of them Fury seems to have a unique prize in having beat the best first when he was champ.

              You see how that works? Consensus is an interesting animal. It is the rule of the stupids at times...BUT when it works, when you give fans the mantle to determine greatness, which is what the lineal is about, it magically sorts out the nonsense.

              So, Democracy/Consensus is such that people would be stupid enough to elect Big Baby as a Senator, but smart enough that a room full of boxing fans could give us a lineal champ!

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by Scipio2009 View Post
                I disagree. To simply dismiss Stiverne's claim is a mistake.
                Why? This is not a scientific fact that is keeping people in jeapardy. Fans should have the perogative to dismiss a claim at any time. If there is a technical reason why Stiverne needs consideration then that can be put out there....there could even be a schism where you have two partially accepted lineals...the situation will resolve eventually and give us our one again. Or, fans could rightly say Vlad was so much better than Stiverne.

                The point is the fans have the perogative. The way that is supposed to work is that when Rocky Marciano was walking around, he was the champ...period. Boxing fans from that time would have laughed at a group claiming a champ. The fans knew... that was all that was needed. You could have gone to Spain and people would have known who the heavyweight champ of the world was.

                Comment


                • #28
                  The only people disputing the lineage are british Anthony Johnson fanboys

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    There have been some heated debates over this, but I believe it lies with Fury

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      I'm not sure of everyone's knowledge. The history of titles is fascinating to me but I don't want to be taken as patronizing y'all and I don't want to write out a long explanation to folks who already know but maybe forgot or overlooked. So I'll just answer the question and use this opener as an explanation to allude to my ability come more complete, but, if you want more on the lineal or history of the HW crown I can pretty well explain every hole left by Cyber Boxing Zone. It can't hurt to ask and I more than likely do have an answer....I don't mean to brag or claim I am more educated than anyone else it's just that if none of you have ever charted and explained every champion from 686BC to the present I have actually done that work and research so you don't have to....and yes, to understand the three hundred years since the English revival you must have some understanding of the history that lasted over a millenia prior...what they were reviving helps understand the revival.



                      Anyway, The question is does Tyson keep his lineal status in retirement, correct?

                      When dealing with lineal, which has no official rules, you still have accepted rules yes? Like Man who beat the man? Alright, where did they come from if lineal has no rules? Of course they came from presidence.

                      In Man who beat the man's case, probably the most famous and exalted rule of lineal, that goes all the way back to James Figg's death. Prior to Figg's passing boxing was controlled by Figg and his Amphitheatre. I think something like the first seven or so champions are all Figg students, the men they beat for their title are all Figg students outside of Bob Whitaker fighting a Venetian. They fought in Figg's House. They promoted and managed the House, and most of their fights are dubious at best. For example after Bob beat the Venetian, who quit while claiming the English don't know boxing and would never give any foreign man fair play, Figg took the stage to announce in a week's time he'd produce a student who'd make short work of Bob....also his student. Nat Peartree did just that. Figg's era reads that way until Figg dies and his two star pupils split the House. From Figg's Amphitheatre came the split of Broughton and Tailor both star pupils of Figg, both opening an amphitheatre for themselves, both claiming the title based on being the best and last of the Figg students. The man who owned the title by victory was not defending it and both Broughton and Tailor had wins over him.

                      Broughton beat Tailor. Man who beat the man becomes far more important than Figg credentials. Broughton is king of boxing and that is why Broughton codified boxing. So that when he lost control it'd only be by so much, his rules would continue.

                      So what is our precedence for an unbeaten champion coming out of retirement to reclaim their belt?

                      Well, just loads really. One of my favorite examples is Jem Ward. Jem won his title off a fix, lost it, regained it, then went straight to ducking any challenge.

                      Jem Ward was ducking Deaf Burke when he retired. Back then the retired champion elected a bout for his vacant title so the next champion would have the previous champ's blessing. Ward retired so that he didn't have to face Burke and elected the man who he had fought for the title last to fight Burke. That man was Simon Byrne.

                      James Burke killed Byrne in the ring.

                      Ward claimed Burke was no fit to be champion and came out of retirement to reclaim his title. Jem Ward is still recognized as champion.

                      Burke goes through legal trouble for the Byrne death and is told by Ward they would fight in the ring for Ward's title if Burke can raise enough funds. The purse was some absurd number for the day but Burke got it eventually by working odd jobs, chopping wood and ****.

                      Ward took Burke's money and retired.

                      Ward elected his younger brother Nat Ward and Deaf Burke to fight for his title.

                      Deaf Burke knocked Nat Ward out.

                      Jem Ward announces Deaf Burke is not English enough to be champion, reclaims his title, Jem Ward is the champion.

                      Jem Ward never actually got stripped or removed, he never fought Burke, and he never honored a Burke victory.

                      James Burke got his World title acknowledgement from America when he defeated the Irish champion Sam O'Rourke on US soil while avoiding UK law for the Byrne death.

                      To this day historians argue as to where exactly Burke's reign begins and Ward's reign ends.

                      Not good enough you say? Need more examples?

                      How about Peter Maher? Did you know Maher was the World champion for like a blink?

                      Corbett retires. Maher fights someone, name escapes atm, for Corbett's title in the same fashion as the Ward-Burke fights; Corbett elected the title fight for his title. The other man was Corbett's but unlike Ward Corbett had some honor to him and handed Maher his title.

                      James went off to become an actor. Maher wanted to legitimize himself still because by this time the public had soured to champions just picking the fighters to fight for the title and pressure for something like the sanctioning bodies today was growing.

                      Maher would lose a couple of months later to Fitzsimmons. With fans unhappy with how the belt is transferred and so unwilling to recognize Maher as champion Fitzs, like Peter, did not claim the title but would be happy to defend it all the same. Corbett came out of retirement unbeaten and announced he's still the champion and Fitzs was happy to accept this because it set up a much bigger match between him and Corbett.

                      To this day Fitzsimmon's reign is recorded as having begun when he defeated Corbett. To this day you can see Fitzsimmons vs Sharkey, the one fight Bob had in between Maher and Corbett, was promoted as a HW title fight.

                      You will not see Sharkey or Maher on most lists of champions because their time as champion was stricken from record books when Corbett reclaimed his.


                      So there's two cases I pulled outta my bum that sent the precedence for Tyson Fury reclaiming the lineal title provided you see Wlad as lineal.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP