Define common boxing terms / words such as bums, journeymen and etc

I agree with some of your points! However, if a boxer holds the most belts in a weight division (even if he isn't undisputed) and cleans up at least one sanctioning body at a given time, then he is as good as a 'lineal champion' to me. I agree that complexity arises when there are so many sanctioning bodies and it wold be much simpler if there was only a single sanctioning body. But merely being a unified champion isn't enough to be considered a 'lineal champion' as far as I'm concerned. Since some contenders might be better boxers than a paper title holder (Luis Ortiz and Alexander Povetkin are arguably better than Joseph Parker). And although the rankings differ from one sanctioning body to another sanctioning body. Most of the time, top 10 ranked boxers in one sanctioning body are also going to be ranked in the top 10 in another sanctioning body (barring exceptions). The difference will just be that most of the time, say one sanctioning body like WBC is going to have a boxer in number 3 whilst another sanctioning body like WBA are going to have the same boxer in number 6, despite both being in the top 10 of both sanctioning bodies. The differences are very marginable. It's very unlikely that you will find a boxer who is ranked 100 in one sanctioning body like the WBC whilst also ranked number 1 in another sanctioning body like WBA. Well the main thing is, if someone follows the sport, they know who the real guys are. All these belt holders and lineal champions are only as good as the competition they've beaten the get there. Without 1 true champion per division who is forced to defend against top contenders, it's all pretty well meaningless...and at the end of the day, making a new criteria for crowning lineal champions is equally pointless if they just sit on the title and don't face the top contenders. I'ts pretty well a lost cause imo.

The problem is if a guy is only beating top contenders in one sanctioning body...there's no guarantee he's gonna face the top contenders in other sanctioning body rankings. The tbrb rankings and champions are more legit than that scenario. There's always gonna be new contenders coming up, but if a fighter unifies all the belts, he's cleaned out the division at that particular time. Even that doesn't even really matter if the champ isn't facing top contenders, which is why without returning to one title per division, the term lineal champ doesn't have much purpose these days. I agree with some of your points! However, if a boxer holds the most belts in a weight division (even if he isn't undisputed) and cleans up at least one sanctioning body at a given time, then he is as good as a 'lineal champion' to me. I agree that complexity arises when there are so many sanctioning bodies and it wold be much simpler if there was only a single sanctioning body. But merely being a unified champion isn't enough to be considered a 'lineal champion' as far as I'm concerned. Since some contenders might be better boxers than a paper title holder (Luis Ortiz and Alexander Povetkin are arguably better than Joseph Parker). And although the rankings differ from one sanctioning body to another sanctioning body. Most of the time, top 10 ranked boxers in one sanctioning body are also going to be ranked in the top 10 in another sanctioning body (barring exceptions). The difference will just be that most of the time, say one sanctioning body like WBC is going to have a boxer in number 3 whilst another sanctioning body like WBA are going to have the same boxer in number 6, despite both being in the top 10 of both sanctioning bodies. The differences are very marginable. It's very unlikely that you will find a boxer who is ranked 100 in one sanctioning body like the WBC whilst also ranked number 1 in another sanctioning body like WBA.

Unification isn't the only way it would work because sometimes a champion might not even be better than a contender. Such as Joseph Parker being arguably inferior to Kubrat Pulev or Alexander Povetkin. And one of the champs may have only been able to gain their title due to being lucky by perhaps fighting for a vacant belt which one of the other contenders who are even better as a boxer may not have had the luck and the opportunity to fight for. Thus, beating a champion and unifying the title doesn't necessarily mean you are the lineal champion because you are still yet to face another boxer who may not be the champion, but is superior as a boxer to the champion that you beat. Thus, the only way to become the lineal champion is to clean up the division. And to do this, beating at least one other champion to possess most titles in the division, along with defeating at least 10 mandatory challengers ranked in the top 10 is more or less akin to cleaning up the division and thus being qualified to earn the 'lineal champion' title. Unless you have a different criteria to determine when a boxer may have "cleaned" up their division or you disagree with cleaning up the division being sufficient enough? The problem is if a guy is only beating top contenders in one sanctioning body...there's no guarantee he's gonna face the top contenders in other sanctioning body rankings. The tbrb rankings and champions are more legit than that scenario. There's always gonna be new contenders coming up, but if a fighter unifies all the belts, he's cleaned out the division at that particular time. Even that doesn't even really matter if the champ isn't facing top contenders, which is why without returning to one title per division, the term lineal champ doesn't have much purpose these days.

I still disagree if you are suggesting that defending any belt 10 times would make someone lineal champ. The problem is, all the belts have different ranking systems and they don't always overlap. Imo, unifying the division is the only way...that is of course unless we recognize ring or trbr as legit. Unification isn't the only way it would work because sometimes a champion might not even be better than a contender. Such as Joseph Parker being arguably inferior to Kubrat Pulev or Alexander Povetkin. And one of the champs may have only been able to gain their title due to being lucky by perhaps fighting for a vacant belt which one of the other contenders who are even better as a boxer may not have had the luck and the opportunity to fight for. Thus, beating a champion and unifying the title doesn't necessarily mean you are the lineal champion because you are still yet to face another boxer who may not be the champion, but is superior as a boxer to the champion that you beat. Thus, the only way to become the lineal champion is to clean up the division. And to do this, beating at least one other champion to possess most titles in the division, along with defeating at least 10 mandatory challengers ranked in the top 10 is more or less akin to cleaning up the division and thus being qualified to earn the 'lineal champion' title. Unless you have a different criteria to determine when a boxer may have "cleaned" up their division or you disagree with cleaning up the division being sufficient enough?

Glad to see you agree that there exists no COMMON 'meaningful' definition of the term 'lineal champion'. And that's been exactly my point all along! That the definitions aren't very specific or accurate, thus immeasurable and the definitions vary and aren't universally standardized. My definition may seem arbitrary at first. Especially the number that I selected However, upon further investigation, my definition and the number I selected aren't actually arbitrary and are pretty reasonable. The reason why I stated that if a champion beats minimum 10 mandatory challengers, they become the 'lineal champion' is because there exists a top 10 ranking in every weight division. And anyone who beats a top 10 ranked boxer, becomes a potential challenger. Thus, the top 10 ranked boxers are the best boxers in the world in any weight division in boxing. So if a boxer is able to defeat 10 mandatory challengers ranked in the top 10, then that's equivalent to beating the 'best possible opponents' in the weight division and thus can be classified as 'cleaning up the weight division'. As after that, one would've proven himself against every potential contender / 'best possible opponents'.. So in summary, for a boxer to qualify as a 'lineal champion', they must either defeat a former linear champion or clean up their weight division according to the criteria I provided (defeating 10 mandatory challengers ranked in the top 10). The latter is what one must do if a former lineal champion retires without being defeated (Vitali Klitschko). Otherwise, it would be impossible for any other boxer to ever become a 'lineal champion'. I still disagree if you are suggesting that defending any belt 10 times would make someone lineal champ. The problem is, all the belts have different ranking systems and they don't always overlap. Imo, unifying the division is the only way...that is of course unless we recognize ring or trbr as legit.

that's pretty much why the term lineal is antiquated and meaningless. in the days of 1 title, lineages were broken all the time for the reason you stated and by fighters vacating to move to another division. a new lineage was started by the top fighters in that division facing each other. now with all the belts, different ranking systems and politics making it nearly impossible to make the best fight the best...the lineal title in some divisions remains vacant for years. the ring and tbrb style ranking systems are the closest we can come to crowning lineal champions these days...and for years the ring champ was synonymous with lineal champ. but without a true consensus ranking system, the only true way to become recognized as lineal champion imo, is to unify all the belts...that or revert to having one champion per division. Glad to see you agree that there exists no COMMON 'meaningful' definition of the term 'lineal champion'. And that's been exactly my point all along! That the definitions aren't very specific or accurate, thus immeasurable and the definitions vary and aren't universally standardized. My definition may seem arbitrary at first. Especially the number that I selected However, upon further investigation, my definition and the number I selected aren't actually arbitrary and are pretty reasonable. The reason why I stated that if a champion beats minimum 10 mandatory challengers, they become the 'lineal champion' is because there exists a top 10 ranking in every weight division. And anyone who beats a top 10 ranked boxer, becomes a potential challenger. Thus, the top 10 ranked boxers are the best boxers in the world in any weight division in boxing. So if a boxer is able to defeat 10 mandatory challengers ranked in the top 10, then that's equivalent to beating the 'best possible opponents' in the weight division and thus can be classified as 'cleaning up the weight division'. As after that, one would've proven himself against every potential contender / 'best possible opponents'.. So in summary, for a boxer to qualify as a 'lineal champion', they must either defeat a former linear champion or clean up their weight division according to the criteria I provided (defeating 10 mandatory challengers ranked in the top 10). The latter is what one must do if a former lineal champion retires without being defeated (Vitali Klitschko). Otherwise, it would be impossible for any other boxer to ever become a 'lineal champion'.

How about you answer the questions I asked you first? Especially the third question. I ask again: What happens if that 'man' retires without losing? Can anybody else ever become a 'man' or a lineal champion following this event and if yes, how? I've researched the definition of a lineal champion but there exists no UNIVERSALLY accepted standard definition. The definitions are subjective and varies from one individual to another. And from my research, I've not found the answer to the question I just posed to you. that's pretty much why the term lineal is antiquated and meaningless. in the days of 1 title, lineages were broken all the time for the reason you stated and by fighters vacating to move to another division. a new lineage was started by the top fighters in that division facing each other. now with all the belts, different ranking systems and politics making it nearly impossible to make the best fight the best...the lineal title in some divisions remains vacant for years. the ring and tbrb style ranking systems are the closest we can come to crowning lineal champions these days...and for years the ring champ was synonymous with lineal champ. but without a true consensus ranking system, the only true way to become recognized as lineal champion imo, is to unify all the belts...that or revert to having one champion per division.

And that is where your definitions are not working. 1) Darnell boone is a gatekeeper even though he has many losses. Another example is Robinson castellanos, who had many early losses, but now is a contender at 130 and certainly not a bum. How can a bum beat Gamboa, rios, caballero and nearly beat coralles. 2) you are using the term prospect differently than every reporter, analyst and everyone else. Congratulation. If you really think Stevenson is not a prospect than you should think about changing your "definitions" 3)you are judging entire careers by evaluating performances at one weight class? So pacquiao is a featherfist because he doesn't knock anyone out at 147, his eight weightclass? Shouldn't you take into account the level of opposition? If someone steps up earlier in his career it is more likely that he will have a lower ko percentage than a guy who is feasting on bums until his 30th fight. Firstly, for most of those terms / words, there aren't any 'right' or 'wrong' definitions. A lot of these words / terms like 'bum' have no standard and universally accepted / agreed definition and they aren't even official words / terms to begin with. They are words invented mainly by boxing associates such as fans, journalists, media and etc. And the definitions of those words / terms differs from individual to individual subjectively. Secondly, despite the fact that there can't be a 'right' or 'wrong' definition, there can be a wrong action where one doesn't stick to a definition and changes the definitions of those words / terms selectively when it suits them to present an agenda. This is called 'double standard'. It doesn't matter what definition someone gives to any of those terms / words. What matters is that they stick to the definition at all times without changing it selectively and randomly based on personal preference. My definition of the word 'bum' isn't any more correct or incorrect than yours. The only thing you can do to be correct is that whatever definition you give to that word, you must ensure the definition is specifically measurable and that you stick to that definition at all times. Otherwise, you expose yourself as someone with double standards and someone who is a hypocrite. Anybody can beat anybody in professional boxing. Professional boxing is an actual sport and not some computer program or game where one boxer can never lose to another boxer. If someone claims Adonis Stevenson will beat Darnel Boone. It only means that Adonis Stevenson will MOST LIKELY beat Boone by being the favorite and if they fought say 10 times, Adonis Stevenson will win more times than lose. It doesn't at all mean that Boone could not win or does not stand a chance at winning. So yes, a 'bum' can beat top level opponents occasionally. It doesn't mean they will be the favorite to beat the top level opponent. Nor does it mean they will win more times than lose if they fought each other 10 times in a row or more times in a row. So provide the correct definition of the word 'prospect', if you disagree with the definition I provided. There is a difference between evaluating a boxer's overall performance and performance in one weight division. And I specify that exactly which I'm doing. I don't judge a boxer's entire career record based on how they performed in one weight division. rather, I evaluate a boxer's record in different weight divisions separately. Or I evaluate a boxer's entire career record overall in terms of how they performed statistically in every weight division combined. Pacquiao is indeed a feather fist, specifically and only at 147 pounds (because his KO percentage at 147 pounds is below 50%). However, he isn't a feather fist in weight divisions below welterweight (because his KO percentage is above 50% in those weight divisions). I actually do take into consideration quality of opposition too. When I compare two boxers, I compare their performances against bums and non-bums. I don't compare one boxer's performances against bums to another boxer's performances against non-bums since that would be an unfair comparison to make. If I do compare two boxers, I make sure I compare both of their performances, ONLY against bums or only against non-bums. Some boxers are only feather-fisted against non-bums and not feather fisted against bums. Whilst other boxers are non - feather fisted against bums or non-bums. As an example, Evander Holyfield is a feather-fist at heavyweight against non-bums whilst Mike Tyson is not a feather fist against non-bums.

Are you not familiar with title lineage and the meaning of lineal champion? Just google it. How about you answer the questions I asked you first? Especially the third question. I ask again: What happens if that 'man' retires without losing? Can anybody else ever become a 'man' or a lineal champion following this event and if yes, how? I've researched the definition of a lineal champion but there exists no UNIVERSALLY accepted standard definition. The definitions are subjective and varies from one individual to another. And from my research, I've not found the answer to the question I just posed to you.

1) Define 'man'! 2) How does one become a 'man' in the first place? 3) What happens if that 'man' retires without losing? Can anybody else ever become a 'man' following this event and if yes, how? Are you not familiar with title lineage and the meaning of lineal champion? Just google it.

Most of those numbers aren't 'randomly cut off' or arbitrary. And if some of them are. It still enables me to be objective because I always stick to the standard definition of those words all the time when evaluating / describing boxers. Instead of having double standards where I change the definition when it suits me. Having a single definition and sticking to it (irrespective of what the definition is) > not having a standard definition and not sticking by a standard definition That'll be correct! Yes, this is possible in boxing. Especially in the heavier weight divisions where anybody can get beaten, dropped and even knocked out by bums. It's just the likelihood of it happening is low. That's be true (for now). I analyze the ENTIRE CAREER RECORD of a boxer and not just a single or a few bouts. And judging by Holyfield's ENTIRE CAREER RECORD, he is a feather fist because his KO percentage at heavyweight is below 50%. That would also be my definition of the word 'contender'. And that is where your definitions are not working. 1) Darnell boone is a gatekeeper even though he has many losses. Another example is Robinson castellanos, who had many early losses, but now is a contender at 130 and certainly not a bum. How can a bum beat Gamboa, rios, caballero and nearly beat coralles. 2) you are using the term prospect differently than every reporter, analyst and everyone else. Congratulation. If you really think Stevenson is not a prospect than you should think about changing your "definitions" 3)you are judging entire careers by evaluating performances at one weight class? So pacquiao is a featherfist because he doesn't knock anyone out at 147, his eight weightclass? Shouldn't you take into account the level of opposition? If someone steps up earlier in his career it is more likely that he will have a lower ko percentage than a guy who is feasting on bums until his 30th fight.

For me it's all relative to the current state of the division, the past state of the division, and the divisions around them. Some divisions are still in a development phase while others have settled down. I tend to regard divisions/fighters higher when they "defend" themselves from invaders from higher/lower weight classes. Take cruiser for example which I don't think is better than 175 or HW. It had 2 invaders from 175, Bellew/Vlasov, neither champions, break into the top 10 with relative ease. Meanwhile it's had champions like Haye, Cunningham, Adamek, & Huck all fail at heavyweight. Cruiser is still in development phase like 160, and to a lesser extend 175/HW, these divisions have settled down more so than the others. In a year or so when things start rounding out these will be some of the stronger divisions in boxing. Bums, journeymen, all relative to the fighters and divisions around them.

I know what you are getting at. But there are much more factors at play and it does not work with some randomly chosen cutoff numbers. With your definition, Darnell boone is a prime example for a bum. But would a bum beat Stevenson? and knock down Kovalev and Ward? Who in your opinion is a prospect? According to your definition conlan, Stevenson, dubois, joyce are not considered prospects. How is Holyfield featherfisted at HW when he knocked out and hurt many high level fighters at HW. Im not a native english speaker, so excuse me if im wrong. To contest = actually fighting for a title? If yes, then your definition is not right. You become a contender, if your resume legitimise a title shot bybeating a top10 ranked fighter at least. But there are much more factors at play and it does not work with some randomly chosen cutoff numbers. Most of those numbers aren't 'randomly cut off' or arbitrary. And if some of them are. It still enables me to be objective because I always stick to the standard definition of those words all the time when evaluating / describing boxers. Instead of having double standards where I change the definition when it suits me. Having a single definition and sticking to it (irrespective of what the definition is) > not having a standard definition and not sticking by a standard definition With your definition, Darnell boone is a prime example for a bum. That'll be correct! But would a bum beat Stevenson? and knock down Kovalev and Ward? Yes, this is possible in boxing. Especially in the heavier weight divisions where anybody can get beaten, dropped and even knocked out by bums. It's just the likelihood of it happening is low. Who in your opinion is a prospect? According to your definition conlan, Stevenson, dubois, joyce are not considered prospects. That's be true (for now). How is Holyfield featherfisted at HW when he knocked out and hurt many high level fighters at HW. I analyze the ENTIRE CAREER RECORD of a boxer and not just a single or a few bouts. And judging by Holyfield's ENTIRE CAREER RECORD, he is a feather fist because his KO percentage at heavyweight is below 50%. To contest = actually fighting for a title? If yes, then your definition is not right. You become a contender, if your resume legitimise a title shot bybeating a top10 ranked fighter at least. That would also be my definition of the word 'contender'.

it follows the lineage of the title. it's the man who beats the man...even guys who aren't top fighters can become lineal champion. for example, carlos baldomir was the lineal ww champion. 1) Define 'man'! 2) How does one become a 'man' in the first place? 3) What happens if that 'man' retires without losing? Can anybody else ever become a 'man' following this event and if yes, how?

Well then provide your definition and then we can hold them up to a specific level of scrutiny. It's a sign of a coward who criticizes someone else's work without providing their own at all. It's easy to criticize someone else for provoding some information without you doing it yourself. it follows the lineage of the title. it's the man who beats the man...even guys who aren't top fighters can become lineal champion. for example, carlos baldomir was the lineal ww champion.

I'm 'fixating' on numbers because numbers makes something specific enough to the point where there remains no vagueness or questions required to be asked out of non-clarity. There is a difference between telling someone to walk left and walk left 1 mile when giving them directions. Merely telling someone to walk left leaves unanswered questions about things that aren't clear and specific. Numbers makes something measurable and verifiable for one to use to determine accurately whether a particular definition is fulfilled. Whilst vague definitions such as: - Journeyman: Can give you rounds, due to being tough or elusive enough, but cant win rounds, due to poor offense and most of the time no power. Begs the question: what does it mean to be 'tough' and how 'tough' does that boxer have to be and how do we determine if they possess a specific level of toughness? There exists this same problem of lack of clarity in your first definition of the first term 'bum'. There isn't a way to accurately determine whether a boxer is a 'bum' or not based on your definition because it isn't specific enough due to not providing sufficient details such as how a 'challenge' is defined and if that boxer will still be a bum if they provide a challenge to every other top 10 ranked boxer except one boxer due to that one boxer being so good that they stand out from even other top 10 ranked boxers. I know what you are getting at. But there are much more factors at play and it does not work with some randomly chosen cutoff numbers. With your definition, Darnell boone is a prime example for a bum. But would a bum beat Stevenson? and knock down Kovalev and Ward? Who in your opinion is a prospect? According to your definition conlan, Stevenson, dubois, joyce are not considered prospects. How is Holyfield featherfisted at HW when he knocked out and hurt many high level fighters at HW. Im not a native english speaker, so excuse me if im wrong. To contest = actually fighting for a title? If yes, then your definition is not right. You become a contender, if your resume legitimise a title shot bybeating a top10 ranked fighter at least.

bum - a boxer that loses to a fighter that you dislike but when the "bum" in question faces a fighter you do like they're no longer bums. (Ex. when ggg beat lemeiux, lemmie was a bum. when BJS beat lemeiux, BJS is elite. Ex. #2. pacquiao beat algieri who was a bum. spence bets algieri and its his best win. Ex#3. floyd beats oscar who is over the hill and "old". pacquiao beats a worst version of oscar and its a miracle). bum is a term used to push an agenda. Good point.

GGG didn't face Ward, because Ward wouldn't come down to 168. Also Ward only called after better fights had been made. I understand your point. I wasn't initially 100% sure whether Gennady Golovkin HIMSELF even claimed that he would box against anybody from 154 pounds - 168 pounds. Just that IF he did (which is a question mark) and refused a bout against someone calling him out at 168 pounds or refused a bout against Andre Ward IF he called him out initially, then that'd be considered a 'duck' by my definition. Now whether Golovkin himself really claimed what some of the individuals (mainly critiques and haters) claim GGG claimed is something I've seen no direct evidence of. So maybe not a 'duck' but you hopefully get the point

Alphabet Soup: Alphabet soup refers to the abbreviations of the various sanctioning bodies that have proliferated since the 1980s. It is their handing out of what many boxing aficionados consider 'cheap' world titles. Bleeder: A fighter who is vulnerable to cuts (aka Arturo Gatti). Flash Knockdown: A flash knockdown occurs when a fighter is knocked down but gets up quickly and shows little or no ill-effects. It is sometimes called a no-count. queer street: A term used to describe the condition of someone who just got clocked lovely, but is still barely standing somehow, or was knocked down and unwisely got back up. Marked by wobbly legs and a glazed over look in the eyes. Rabbit Puchn: This is a punch delivered by a boxer to the back of the neck of his opponent. It is illegal to use because of the potential for serious injury it can cause. It is derived from the blow used by a rabbit hunter to kill the animal. Rope-a-Dope: Allowing an opponent to go on the offensive while covering up on the ropes and waiting for him to tire. Rubber Match: A rubber match is the deciding match of a multi-bout series between two boxers, in which the two boxers have each won a bout against each other. The term usually refers to the third bout in a series, making it a trilogy. Southpaw: In boxing, the term 'southpaw' refers to a left-handed fighter, one who fights with his right hand and foot forward while keeping his left hand and foot in the back. Swing Bout: A swing bout is a short boxing match on a televised boxing program, put on at short notice, usually after the main event ends prematurely. Sometimes a swing bout may come before the main event--when the preliminary bouts end quickly. White Hope: When Jack Johnson defeated Tommy Burns to become the first black man to win the World Heavyweight Championship on December 26, 1908, a cry went out for a white fighter who could reclaim the title for the Caucasian race. Tomato Can: A professional boxer of below-average ability who frequently loses his fights, usually in four or six round bouts, to boxers who are just starting out in their careers; or experienced boxers who are taking a bout just to stay busy or to earn some easy money.

I wouldn't call any professional fighter a bum, not now anyway. Term should be reserved for those who aren't willing to put a hard days work. Some fighters have losing records but they put their blood, sweat and tears in the ring all the same.