How important and relevant is the right to be called lineal Heavyweight Champion of the World in 2018?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MScEQESjKyU
Printable View
How important and relevant is the right to be called lineal Heavyweight Champion of the World in 2018?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MScEQESjKyU
Good informative video showing the history of the heavyweight championship in 20 minutes. I shuddered seeing guys like Shannon Briggs in there, but whatever. Having said that, it's a good 20 minutes, only to conclude by placing Tyson Fury at the end of the list. To answer the question posed, I think the importance and relevance of being called the lineal HW champion has been watered down over time, and has finally plunged into total non-relevance. Fury made sure of that by beating Wlad outside the ring first, then making it official when Wlad basically refused to go on offense. Then, Fury promptly imploded, having made zero defenses of his strangely won title. Wlad vs AJ probably rescued HW championship fighting from the abyss it had fallen into, lineal claims be damned. But the real reason lineal claims became irrelevant long ago was, as the narrator correctly put it, was the rise and corruption of the different alphabet titles. Once that occurred, lineal claims became practically meaningless.
In this day and age, I think it's better to rate the best fighter in a division, rather than the champion. The reason is, it has become very messy and there are no strict rules around crowning a lineal champion. Who determinds the #1 and #2 for example? Back in the day, the former champion basically did.
As for Fury, his claim is even muddied. Was Wlad the lineal champ? I pointed this out in another thread. Vitali was still unretired at the time of Wlad/Povetkin, so was that match really between the #1 and #2?
Fury as we know also accepted a 2 year back dated suspension, meaning that the Wlad fight should technically be ruled a no contest.
Just to add a bit more fun, some believe Fury should still be considered lineal, despite his retirement and suspension. The Ring actually recognised Vitali/Saunders (their #1 and #2 at the time) as for their championship. If they refuse to recognise Fury's retirement (for mental health and drug related issues) because he is back and fighting, then the same could be argued for Vitali.
Like I say, lineal championships have become very messy.
It's mental vomit. I'd rather argue who's p4p than who's lineal at this point.
Like I said, I prefer to rate the best fighter in a division these days.Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
P4P is too subjective for me.
Things have changed a lot. With multiple titles it gets so messy. It becomes easier to become lineal champ without fighting the best. For example, Canelo got the real middleweight title even though GGG was considered the best middleweight. So the lineal title wasn’t looked at as highly as other titles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha
Also, a lineal champ can lose a title to a lesser fighter and generally as fans we consider the next in line as champ rather than the guy who beat the lineal champ. It’s just weird. That’s the problem with multiple titles
Exactly, and Canelo has more claim to a lineal title than Fury.Quote:
Originally Posted by powerpuncherThings have changed a lot. With multiple titles it gets so messy. It becomes easier to become lineal champ without fighting the best. For example, Canelo got the real middleweight title even though GGG was considered the best middleweight. So the lineal title wasn’t looked at as highly as other titles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha
Also, a lineal champ can lose a title to a lesser fighter and generally as fans we consider the next in line as champ rather than the guy who beat the lineal champ. It’s just weird. That’s the problem with multiple titles
The problem is there are no set guidelines and no 1 recognised authority determining who is #1 and #2, if retirements/ suspensions are cause for vacating.
Now you have to unify 4 titles, previously it was 3. The number of titles required could increase in the future.
With multiple belts, it's pointless to even talk "lineal". Maybe when referring to the good ol' days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaExactly, and Canelo has more claim to a lineal title than Fury.Quote:
Originally Posted by powerpuncherThings have changed a lot. With multiple titles it gets so messy. It becomes easier to become lineal champ without fighting the best. For example, Canelo got the real middleweight title even though GGG was considered the best middleweight. So the lineal title wasn’t looked at as highly as other titles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha
Also, a lineal champ can lose a title to a lesser fighter and generally as fans we consider the next in line as champ rather than the guy who beat the lineal champ. It’s just weird. That’s the problem with multiple titles
The problem is there are no set guidelines and no 1 recognised authority determining who is #1 and #2, if retirements/ suspensions are cause for vacating.
Now you have to unify 4 titles, previously it was 3. The number of titles required could increase in the future.
Well..... Canelo IS in line to receive the "Adolfo Lopez Mateos WBC World Title Belt" if he lasts the 12 rounds against GGG on Sept 15th.
I hear that one is prettier and gaudier than the regular ol' belts.
Sarcasm at close-to-its-finest
It's perfectly fair to say Fury is lineal champ as Wlad was universally recognised as the no.1 heavyweight for about a decade (ignoring Vitali). The very fact Fury never lost his title in the ring is the whole point of lineal. It doesn't matter if a new linage has been created, it quite simply is bogus until a fighter can claim to be the man who beat the man. So any returning lineal champion is THE MAN regardless of who he fights. In this day day of multi titles obviously "lineal" no longer means "best," however, it still does make things easier.
The Ring is not "lineal" (something commonly muddled). They went out of business in the late 80s/early 90s then stopped the rankings altogether, upon restarting the ratings they ignored their own history which led to nonsense like Roy Jones being "lineal" when the linage to Michalczewski had not been broken. The Ring tried to reinvent history for TV exposure champions like Roy could give them.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterYes Canelo's linage is very straightforward and legit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha
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.
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.
It is muddy as it is but to add PED into the equation means fighters like Shane Mosley, Roy Jones, and Holyfield would not be considered. Fury would be out.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaGood 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterYes Canelo's linage is very straightforward and legit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wlad-Chagaev was for the vacant Ring title, he was defending against Povetkin
That fight was clearly 1 vs 3.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Because 1-vs-2 couldn't fight as they were brothers.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaThat fight was clearly 1 vs 3.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
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 😠
You are right, Golovkin could be higher.Quote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust
BTW magic posting fenster/alpha. It is like a tennis match, both views are valid.
But you say:
It is well documented that Wlad/ Chagaev was 1 vs 3.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
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.
Thanks Master, and Fenster I am loving the debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust
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.
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.
So we both agree ratings and rankings are subjective with no clear authority and lineal is virtually impossible to maintain in this day and age. :D
The other confusion with lineal is it means the best in the division, which is not the case, it simply gives us a standalone champion. A prime example is old man Foreman chinning Moorer when Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis and Tyson, amongst others, were in the same era. Foreman was struggling around with Schulz and Savarese whilst the others were beating each other senseless for alphabets and huge wonga.
Canelo is currently lineal middleweight but Golovkin is clearly the no.1 in the division and Jacobs and Saunders could/should rank higher than Canelo.
You would have loved this forum back in the day, @Alpha, we had lots of super historian hardcore/nerds (and boxrec experts).
Fully agree with many confusing lineal as being the best, another example I like to use is Floyd Patterson/Sonny Liston. Patterson was the champion but was criticised for not fighting true contenders, Liston was dominating opponents, D'Amato didn't want Floyd to fight Liston, his ties to organised crime was also used as an excuse. There are many other examples as well throughout history.
Cheers to you Fenster, it has actually felt like a true forum the last few days, with some quality debate.