Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
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.
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.

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