The Lineal Heavyweight Champ

[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.

[Master]

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.

[Fenster]

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.

[Alpha]

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.

[Alpha]

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.

[Fenster]

Wlad-Chagaev was for the vacant Ring title, he was defending against Povetkin

[Alpha]

Wlad-Chagaev was for the vacant Ring title, he was defending against Povetkin

That fight was clearly 1 vs 3.

[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.

[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 😠