Would you ever recognize a champion who is not currently recognized?

[Marchegiano]

Having done the heavies I kind of know the answer is yes, but, I don't honestly know the parameters because what HW has that the divisions below do not have is something like a formal division going back as far as boxing exists. Pre-formalization there's quite a few champions folks see as lineal champions despite there being no formal division and with HWs there is no case to be made for division.

What I mean is, when you have an era with two claimants to the HW crown it does not call into question what HW is. Conversely when you are looking at two champions, let's just pick Light, and those champions both claim LW but neither is 135 and neither agree with one another what LW is, let's say one claims LW is 120 and one is 130.

With HWs all I had to do was prove these guys won the title by normal means or were accepted in their time as the champion or some such like that. I did not have to define HW.

With divisional history it's going to be impossible for me to categorize folks without defining those cats first.

So, let's say I have found a man who makes no claim to any title, but, the era around him most certainly does see him as the best middleweight active of their era. This is the 1860s, middleweight is not really a thing. However, no one near his size wanted any part of him.

I will be straight, yes he is a black man, no, I can not find any evidence he was avoided because he was black. He was avoided, best as I can tell, because he beat the best men of his era around his size.

This avoidance came after this man's resume, not prior. He does have a very, very good resume for his era.

This avoidance's motivation was not hidden, he was considered the best and there was no point in fighting him.

Can I call him MW champion? Present him as a champion and such?

I am proud to have put that title by names folks accept as champions now, like Nat Peartree. But also Claimants and Lesser Belts showed me folks are way more critical of a career if you present that career like a champion career. Peter Maher was a name I lost on. I see him as a legitimate champion and I'm more-or-less alone in that opinion. I feel like had i presented ol' Pete like he was just a very good contender more folks would have appreciated him.

So now I'm just gonna ask before I present principles.

Can anyone, ever, be elevated to champion? What do you need to see to call a man champion of an era? What kind of proof?

[markusmod]

are you asking if someone can be viewed as the champion if nobody will fight him?

[Rockybigblower]

Are you saying that just because JCC Jr won a belt....it doesn't make him a champion?

[Willie Pep 229]

No . . . You have no historical authority to grant anyone championship status. You do exactly what you did here, you explain the situation to the reader and let the reader decide. If a fighter is recognized by his contemporaries as a champion you ID that, if not, you don't. You may wish to explain your opinion as to why you think he was of championship caliber, but you don't enter him on any list of Champions.

You're not interpreting the history, you're trying to create it.

Sincerely, Willie the ****.

[Marchegiano]

are you asking if someone can be viewed as the champion if nobody will fight him?

That's one part of this particular man's issue, but, what I am more curious about is if you were reading a claim for a title what would you look for to recognize that claim. Open ended. Basically, the ideal would-be champion.

Are you saying that just because JCC Jr won a belt....it doesn't make him a champion?

Something like that, yes.

No . . . You have no historical authority to grant anyone championship status. You do exactly what you did here, you explain the situation to the reader and let the reader decide. If a fighter is recognized by his contemporaries as a champion you ID that, if not, you don't. You may wish to explain your opinion as to why you think he was of championship caliber, but you don't enter him on any list of Champions.

You're not interpreting the history, you're trying to create it.

Sincerely, Willie the ****.

see it is funny



That's all I'm actually asking.

You know me and rambling

To simplify, should any presenter actually present their opinion with their research? Which you've answered nicely but since I'm asking directly may feel differently. Sometimes i feel like it gets folks thinking about it when they wouldn't have. Other times I feel like all it did was inspire criticism. I'm leaning toward keeping my opinions to myself.....for the ****s


I'll be presenting some lessers first, just because I liked them, then I'm going into 1860's MW Bob Smith, who I honestly think may have simply been missed by Nat, Richard, and CBZ. I know what that sounds like but they also conflated the Sambos as one man so it's as big a stretch as it sounds.


On authority, what if I borrow some? Like with the ancients....you're aware I am the only person who gathered that information? I didn't uncover anything, I can not translate first century papyri. So if I present a first century papyri what it's claimed to have said isn't by my authority, it's by prof X's or whatever's authority, I am simply the presenter.

So, in this case, it isn't me claiming Smith was recognized as the best of his era, that'd be Kevin R Smith until I source his sources then it'd be the authors of them sources.

Likewise, not me claiming resume, that'd be contemporaries as per Kevin's presentation of them

I don't think his record is disputable but that is also a thing that would not fall under my own authority.

I can use borrowed authority to make all sorts of claims or opines but they don't mean anything if folks are not interested in any missed champions.

A rose by any other name, ya know. If you give me a criteria for what you'd be willing to see as champion it'd make my presentations go easier because then I could include those marks in the presentation without seeming like I am claiming anything. I'm trying to give youse what you'd be looking for without saying I think and here's why. I think really doesn't matter, you think does.


Thanks ****, I appreciate it.

[Willie Pep 229]

That's one part of this particular man's issue, but, what I am more curious about is if you were reading a claim for a title what would you look for to recognize that claim. Open ended. Basically, the ideal would-be champion.



Something like that, yes.



see it is funny



That's all I'm actually asking.

You know me and rambling

To simplify, should any presenter actually present their opinion with their research? Which you've answered nicely but since I'm asking directly may feel differently. Sometimes i feel like it gets folks thinking about it when they wouldn't have. Other times I feel like all it did was inspire criticism. I'm leaning toward keeping my opinions to myself.....for the ****s


I'll be presenting some lessers first, just because I liked them, then I'm going into 1860's MW Bob Smith, who I honestly think may have simply been missed by Nat, Richard, and CBZ. I know what that sounds like but they also conflated the Sambos as one man so it's as big a stretch as it sounds.


On authority, what if I borrow some? Like with the ancients....you're aware I am the only person who gathered that information? I didn't uncover anything, I can not translate first century papyri. So if I present a first century papyri what it's claimed to have said isn't by my authority, it's by prof X's or whatever's authority, I am simply the presenter.

So, in this case, it isn't me claiming Smith was recognized as the best of his era, that'd be Kevin R Smith until I source his sources then it'd be the authors of them sources.

Likewise, not me claiming resume, that'd be contemporaries as per Kevin's presentation of them

I don't think his record is disputable but that is also a thing that would not fall under my own authority.

I can use borrowed authority to make all sorts of claims or opines but they don't mean anything if folks are not interested in any missed champions.

A rose by any other name, ya know. If you give me a criteria for what you'd be willing to see as champion it'd make my presentations go easier because then I could include those marks in the presentation without seeming like I am claiming anything. I'm trying to give youse what you'd be looking for without saying I think and here's why. I think really doesn't matter, you think does.


Thanks ****, I appreciate it.

You definitely want to include your opinion, need only to ID it as such; the world is full of ****s; no matter what you conclude someone will jump on it.

Your opinions/interpretations are the meat of the history, anyone can list facts

Trying to be more direct . . . If a fighter's contemporaries ID him as a champion you have an obligation to respect that, but then you may want to dispute it. Just be clear which is which: what they said; what you say.

If the reverse should be at issue then you can use terms like 'uncrowned champion' - 'people champion' ETC.

Certainly you want to 'borrow authority' from primary sources, but in the particular you don't want to crown someone champion unless it was recognized in his day.

[Willow The Wisp]

I beleive that I understand your quandry accurately.
A posthumous ordering (or review) of title lineage at Heavyweight is comparatively simple because fight scholars, tapping into Hellenic Greek texts, the writings of Captain John Godfrey, Pierce Egan and everything else existant have taken up the challenge of doing precisely that for two centuries at least, and strong peer consensus exists regarding the relative legitimately of opposing claims (such as Maher's 102 day claim following the aborted retirement of Corbett); and because in the absence of accepted weight divisions, everyone is a Heavyweight (Ala the slender Royce Gracie in the early UFC events or the Thai Boran/Muay Thai battlers before the 1945 opening of Rajadamnern stadium in ****kok).
The introduction of weight classes in boxing was a gradual and uneven seeding.
It is widely known that Boxing was a formal sport distinctive from wrestling for at least 1,000 years when Onomastos of Smyrna was awarded the undisputed championship of the world in 688 BC, according to the Chronicon of Eusebius, the empirical source, and that there was a clear and well documented linear passing of that title for the following 861 years before the title was defused across various cultures, reassembling in England in the late 1600s. But there is no mention of weight classes providing some slack for the smaller, faster and ostensibly more skillful warriors until 1823, when a popular English language "slang dictionary" (anything pertaining to references beyond the narrow interests of the English gentry) titled "The Dictionary of the Vulgar tongue" stated that the limit for a "light weight" was 12 stone (168 lb, 76.2 kg), while the competing Sportsman's Slang the same year counter claimed that the limit was 11 stone (154 lb, 69.9 kg). So yes; maintaining vernacular use of terms defining weight class as an imperative when assempbling non big boy title lineage is a challenge, and not the only one (Lol).
It's fun trying though, for those of us who accept that hostory is an absolute chronology, and arguably the most important class in the curriculum.

[Anthony342]

Yeah if I saw him on TV and knew who he was, then ran into him somewhere. I'd probably approach him at a party or some gathering somewhere and say "don't I know you from somewhere? Oh yeah, saw you fight on TV, big fan."

[markusmod]

Yeah if I saw him on TV and knew who he was, then ran into him somewhere. I'd probably approach him at a party or some gathering somewhere and say "don't I know you from somewhere? Oh yeah, saw you fight on TV, big fan."

Like Charlie Z?

[Nash out]

Like Charlie Z?

Charlie Z is a legend of boxing. What is he now, like 500-0? The man doesn't even need a ring. He'll fight on the street, outside houses, even inside Astro Burger. A true road warrior. Despite his success, he is also very humble, choosing to live with his parents, rather than in a multi-million dollar mansion. Wins over Wilder, Mayweather Sr, Deric the Giant, Southpaw Sil, Pizza delivery guy, and Navy Seal #5 prove his worth. Check my sig, he's in my top 10 P4P. Nash out.