The Lineal Heavyweight Champ

[brocktonblockbust]

Why should Fenster mention 3?

1 and 2 adequately explain his point

[Alpha]

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.

[Fenster]

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.

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.

[Alpha]

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.

[Fenster]

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.

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).

[Alpha]

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.