Re: The Lineal Heavyweight Champ
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Alpha
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Alpha
The question still remains, who decides who fills the vacancy? Usually it's #1 vs #2. Most feel Wlad became lineal with the Povetkin fight. But Vitali didn't retire until December 2013. So unless you considered Povetkin ahead of Vitali, it can be argued that fight wasn't fit the lineal title.
Also the fact that Fury accepted a back dated 2 year ban stemming from the fight prior to Wlad, that fight should really be a no contest.
Fury's claim to the lineal title is weak in my opinion.
Can I ask @
Fenster, do you still consider Canelo the lineal champion?
Yes Canelo's linage is very straightforward and legit.
Hopkins reignited the middleweight linage when beating Tito and unifying all the belts* (no.1-vs-no.2). He remained unbeaten until Taylor dethroned him, who subsequently lost to Pavlik, who lost to Sergio, who lost to Cotto, who then lost to the mexican meat man. The worst thing about Canelo-GGG draw was Golovkin not getting his chance to sit alongside Hagler, Monzon and the other great grey beards.
*for what it's worth, Hopkins unified all four alphabets when beating Oscar
As for Fury's linage - the problem was Wlad-Vitali could never fight. I was a critic of Wlad's place upon the top of the tree throughout his reign precisely because of Vitali, however, by time Fury beat Wlad it was universally recognised that Wlad was the standout of his era and a first ballet HOFamer.
Good Post, agree with some of it tho. How in your opinion does a lineal champion get crowned (if vacant)? Is it 1 vs 2, or unify 3/4 titles. That's the biggest problem with lineal, its that there are no clear cut rules.
I also think it's a bad precedent to set by fans, to continue to recognise fighters as champions after they have been banned for PEDs.
The rules for lineal are clearcut - the man who beat the man/a champion can only lose their title in the ring/should a champion retire a new linage is created when the consensus 1-vs-2 fight. However, it's virtually impossible to implement these days with multiple belts, constant weight hopping and multiple ratings systems. There is no clear authority. Generally The Ring belt is now considered lineal, which is what creates all the confusion today among new hardcore/nerd fans, when as i've already pointed out The Ring funked up their own history leading to several bogus lines.
However, generally the hardcore/nerds and all the major publications are in agreement with the Ring champion being the consensus no.1 per division. Nobody is arguing with Uysk or Crawford or Wang, right?
Unifying four belts is definitely what most modern fans would consider the best system. Virtually anyone with an alphabet is automatically top ten rated by every hardcore/nerd and reputable publication.
Re: The Lineal Heavyweight Champ
Agree with most of your post and an fully aware of the difference between The Ring and Lineal. Jones Jr being the perfect example.
You say it is clear cut but I disagree simply because who decides #1 and #2. In the old days it was the former champion (like heavyweight for example). Your right, with so many different rankings this can be debated, Ward at 168 for example, could be debated that Bute was ahead of Froch. And the whole Wlad/Povetkin, Vitali was still WBC champ until December 2013 when he retired. If he was still champion, it can be argued that he should have been ahead of Povetkin.
I generally agree with most of The Ring champs, although currently I view Ken Shiro as the lineal chap at 108, The Ring currently recognises Budler. I also disagree that the upcoming Groves/Smith fight should be for their title, Groves is #1 for me, but #2 is debatable, Benavidez and Ramirez could also be in the mix.
Without 1 main authority setting the rankings, or limit on how many belts are required (The Ring never used to recognise the WBO, now 4 main belts is the norm like Usyk and Crawford did) there will always be disagreement.
Re: The Lineal Heavyweight Champ
One last thing I'd like to add about Wlad/Povetkin. The Ring conveniently removed Vitali on September 10th 2013, as he had been inactive for 1 year as of the 8th of September 2013, they basically manipulated the rankings to allow the Wlad/Povetkin fight to be for their title.
Now many other fighters in their rankings throughout history have been given extensions or been kept rated for longer than the 367 days Vitali was given. And as I have pointed out Vitali was still WBC champ until December 2013. Wlad/Povetkin took place in October 2013.
Keith Thurman for example is still rated #1 by The Ring after almost 18 months inactive.
That evidence alone highlights that Wlad/Povetkin was not a fight between #1 and #2, as I doubt anyone would have rated Povetkin ahead of Vitali.
Re: The Lineal Heavyweight Champ
Wlad-Chagaev was for the vacant Ring title, he was defending against Povetkin
Re: The Lineal Heavyweight Champ
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Wlad-Chagaev was for the vacant Ring title, he was defending against Povetkin
That fight was clearly 1 vs 3.
Re: The Lineal Heavyweight Champ
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Alpha
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Wlad-Chagaev was for the vacant Ring title, he was defending against Povetkin
That fight was clearly 1 vs 3.
Because 1-vs-2 couldn't fight as they were brothers.
Re: The Lineal Heavyweight Champ
Let's just make one thing clear though and that is that Golovkin will never be "sitting alongside Marvin Hagler".
..... Just wanted to make that clear ðŸ˜
Re: The Lineal Heavyweight Champ
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
Let's just make one thing clear though and that is that Golovkin will never be "sitting alongside Marvin Hagler".
..... Just wanted to make that clear ðŸ˜
You are right, Golovkin could be higher.
BTW magic posting fenster/alpha. It is like a tennis match, both views are valid.
Re: The Lineal Heavyweight Champ
But you say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
The rules for lineal are clearcut - a new linage is created when the consensus 1-vs-2 fight[/B].
However, generally the hardcore/nerds and all the major publications are in agreement with the Ring champion being the consensus no.1 per division.
It is well documented that Wlad/ Chagaev was 1 vs 3.
To the 2nd part of your quote, I mentioned previously that The Ring crowned Vitali their champion after the Saunders fight (their #1 vs #2). Many/ most don't accept this as for the lineal tho. So they don't accept when their #1 vs the #2 fight, but they should accept when their #1 vs #3 fight? When the lineal rules are so clearcut?
This again highlights the problem with lineal and shows that the rules are more muddy than are to be believed.
Like I having been saying throughout the thread, the problem is who decides on the definite #1 and #2? With no 1 set rule determining how the top 2 are decided (see former champions nominating the 2 best, 1 vs 3, unifying how many belts etc) lineal has always and will continue to have it's issues.
Following your logic in the 2nd part of your quote, then Vitali had legitimate claims. Then we get into the retirement argument. But as I have pointed out he should have been recognized as the #1 or #2 guy, when Wlad fought both Chagaev and Povetkin.
The Ring also strips champions that test positive for PEDs, as they did with Nery, Canelo and Fury.
Fans will pick and choose to suit their agenda. But I have clearly outlined with facts that Wlad's claim to the lineal title (I agree he was the universally recognized #1 guy of the era) can be (and is) disputed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
BTW magic posting fenster/alpha. It is like a tennis match, both views are valid.
Thanks Master, and Fenster I am loving the debate.
Re: The Lineal Heavyweight Champ
Hold up, we're getting a bit muddled up here, i'm just filling in a few blanks and answering questions about the Ring policy and how lineal works.
The Ring is not lineal. The Vitali-Saunders episode caused murders with historians who didn't recognise it at all. That is another prime example of the Ring funking about with the rules to suit them.
I said "generally" The Ring along with all other serious publications and hardcore/nerd fans agree when a clear top two emerge in a division, therefore a new linage can be created, hence why The Ring constantly gets mistaken with lineal, as they're seen as the foremost authority.
Wlad couldn't fight the no.2 Vitali and also couldn't complete the unification of belts as Vitali was WBC champion. If you're claiming Wlad should not be regarded as lineal that's fine by me. However, the general consensus is Wlad was the no.1 heavyweight throughout that period, and because he could never face Vitali, I think the "special circumstances" of 1-vs-3 to create ONE champion is understandable, although personally I would have left it open.
Re: The Lineal Heavyweight Champ
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Hold up, we're getting a bit muddled up here, i'm just filling in a few blanks and answering questions about the Ring policy and how lineal works.
The Ring is not lineal. The Vitali-Saunders episode caused murders with historians who didn't recognise it at all. That is another prime example of the Ring funking about with the rules to suit them.
I said "generally" The Ring along with all other serious publications and hardcore/nerd fans agree when a clear top two emerge in a division, therefore a new linage can be created, hence why The Ring constantly gets mistaken with lineal, as they're seen as the foremost authority.
Wlad couldn't fight the no.2 Vitali and also couldn't complete the unification of belts as Vitali was WBC champion. If you're claiming Wlad should not be regarded as lineal that's fine by me. However, the general consensus is Wlad was the no.1 heavyweight throughout that period, and because he could never face Vitali, I think the "special circumstances" of 1-vs-3 to create ONE champion is understandable, although personally I would have left it open.
I'm just trying to point out that lineal is not as clear cut as you suggested.
You said 1 vs 2, no mention of 3 or any special circumstances, and also stated it as clear cut. And the recognition of 1 vs 3 is a Ring thing not a lineal thing.
I know exactly how both policies work, so we are both in the same page.
As for lineal, the subjectiveness on judgements about who are the top ranked fighters, is a problem that extends to vacancies in strictly lineal championships and my entire argument.
Yes I do not feel Wlad should have been declared the lineal champ. Sounds like we have some common ground here now.
The reason I bring up the Vitali/Saunders fight, is that they ranked them 1 vs 2. I find it odd that fans wouldn't recognise this fight, but were happy to accept 1 vs 3. Again it highlights the problem of determining a concensus #1 and #2.
I do agree that Wlad was the #1 heavyweight throughout that period.
Now can we agree that Fury's claim to the lineal title, involving what we have discussed with Wlad, retirement for mental heath and drug related issues, his 2 year back dated ban etc, is very flimsy?
Re: The Lineal Heavyweight Champ
Why should Fenster mention 3?
1 and 2 adequately explain his point
Re: The Lineal Heavyweight Champ
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
Why should Fenster mention 3?
1 and 2 adequately explain his point
Exactly, so 1 vs 3 and special circumstances is only Ring magazine thing. Therefore if 1 vs 2 never happened, then Wlad wasn't lineal, therefore Fury wasn't either.
Re: The Lineal Heavyweight Champ
I have merely said in principle lineal is clearcut - 1-vs-2. I thought I had highlighted the flaws and inconsistencies throughout my waffle, it's the reason I was trying to highlight the difference between The Ring and lineal. :D
Vitali-Sanders wasn't recognised by most historians/hardcore/nerds becuase Lennox had been retired 5 minutes (might not have been official at the time) and Sanders was never considered a standout clearcut no.2, he was a guy that got lucky against Wlad.
The reason I have no problem with Fury calling himself "lineal" is because Wlad was the standalone concensus heavyweight champion of the era, therefore Fury toppled THE man, even if technically Wlad should't be on the same linage as Sullivan, Dempsey, Ali, Tyson and Lennox, etc.
And no I don't think Fury's retirement or drug cheating is a factor. The Wlad fight is yet to be deemed a no-contest and he's not yet lost in the ring. The whole essence of "the man who beat the man" is champions can't lose their crown outside the ropes.
I'd prefer one champion per division over multiple.
Re: The Lineal Heavyweight Champ
A new lineage wasn't created as 1 never faced 2. Fury may have defeated Wlad (who was the #1 guy) but Wlad wasn't the lineal champion.
You stated it is 'clear cut', sure it may have it's flaws, which I also have tried to highlight (mainly regarding deciding on a concensus #1 and 2), but a new lineal line has always been thought of as starting with a fight between the #1 vs the #2.
I would prefer to debate the best fighter in each division, rather than 1 champion, as these days there are to many flaws for lineal to be relevant.
All the facts are in this thread, people can decide for themselves.
