The Lineal Heavyweight Champ

[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 😠

[Master]

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.

BTW magic posting fenster/alpha. It is like a tennis match, both views are valid.

[Alpha]

But you say:

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.

BTW magic posting fenster/alpha. It is like a tennis match, both views are valid.

Thanks Master, and Fenster I am loving the debate.

[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.

[Alpha]

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?