IYO was Oliver McCall was HW Champion ?

[BKM-]

Here's the problem with making absolute statements in prize fighting.

By the above (bold) standard we have to accept Gene Fulmer as being a head above Sugar Ray Robinson in legacy.

In four fights Fullmer went 2-1-1 against SRR (Two UDs) with Sugar Ray's only victory coming from a one punch KO, with Robinson behind on two of the judges score cards at the time of the stoppage. (So save for the 'one punch' we were probably looking at a third UD for Fullmer.)

So since the one punch KO was revenged by a UD and a split draw (and supported by an earlier UD) shouldn't we consider Fullmer as gulity of committing nothing more than a mere misstep, as did Lewis with his one punch loses?

Yet that 'one punch KO' has, over the years, gotten such legs under it that fans still to this day make the KO story a foundation of SRR's legacy.

I am not suggesting this is true, I am suggesting that prize fighting is a sport where you just can't set abosulte standards, every fight has to be evaluated on its own merit.

Lewis got stopped hard, Fullmer got stopped hard. Both men revenged their loss. Fullmer against a fighter no man calls a journeyman.

Either Fullmer isn't getting his just deserves or you're letting Lewis off the hook too easily.

Or maybe there just aren't any constant standards one can set for evaluating greatness.

Gene Fullmer would have had to look like he was just toying with SRR, essentially not taking him seriously. Then getting KO'd. It didn't happen this way.

Then Fullmer would have had to completely dominate and stop SRR in an immediate rematch, leaving no doubt as to who the better fighter was and that the result of the previous fight was no reflection of the quality of the fighters. This didn't happen either.

This comparison doesn't hold up.

Am I letting Lewis off the hook too easily? I don't believe so. We're in the boxing history section where the further you go back in time, the more often you would see some of the greatest fighters having losses here and there. Regularly. Often against less than stellar opposition. Then you got Lewis and you get this disproportionate amount of scrutiny for fully avenged losses. Lewis' career was almost as perfect as it gets. There's not much to use against him so whatever people do have, they're clinging on for dear life. Desperately. They even tried for years to make people believe he has a glass chin when you can count on one hand the amount of fighters who fought as many big punchers as he did without getting ko'd after their shots.

[Willow The Wisp]

Explain this to me because it confuses me. At the time of this debate, I am assuming that Foreman was the alleged lineal because he beat Moorer who beat Holyfield. Is this correct? IF this is correct... Lewis beat Holyfield, he was the best... There is nothing that says hindsight cannot be used with asserting a lineal claim, or, if speculation cannot be used, when clearly Lewis trumps holly.

So this means that McCall beat the best no?

What? "There is nothing that says hindsight cannot be used with asserting a lineal claim". What is lineal? It is predicated soley on chronological order. Earlier in the dialog I explained that. What you're suggesting is that the title lineage can be determined outside the ring by..... consensus? Why relegate the title to that - When we have lineage? Insane. Lewis being the best at that time is merely an opion, even if a popular one. Think liniage is a system in need of improvement????? Really??? Think Boxing has confusion? If being the best could be determined by an entire season of cross ratings play, why have playoffs in team sport? You end up 5th in the regular season and you end up champion in many sports. Boxing, with the longest recorded history of any sport, should be grateful for Heavyweight lineage!!!!!!!! Trying to challeng that is a massive foll's errand. The man who beats the man. We're fortunate that Lewis, a splendid fighter, got to wear the real crown once. Don't be greedy on his behalf by making challenges to logic and reason.

[billeau2]

What? "There is nothing that says hindsight cannot be used with asserting a lineal claim". What is lineal? It is predicated soley on chronological order. Earlier in the dialog I explained that. What you're suggesting is that the title lineage can be determined outside the ring by..... consensus? Why relegate the title to that - When we have lineage? Insane. Lewis being the best at that time is merely an opion, even if a popular one. Think liniage is a system in need of improvement????? Really??? Think Boxing has confusion? If being the best could be determined by an entire season of cross ratings play, why have playoffs in team sport? You end up 5th in the regular season and you end up champion in many sports. Boxing, with the longest recorded history of any sport, should be grateful for Heavyweight lineage!!!!!!!! Trying to challeng that is a massive foll's errand. The man who beats the man. We're fortunate that Lewis, a splendid fighter, got to wear the real crown once. Don't be greedy on his behalf by making challenges to logic and reason.

I am just trying to understand things lol but my understanding is that the lineal as stated "the man who beats the best becomes the best." Within that understanding there has never been a reason to strictly define the lineal, despite the tendency for people to want definitions with exactitude. The lineal was more the common man's celebration of the guy who licked all the rest of the competition. Most times this was simply, the guy that beat the present fighter thought to be the best...; Not necessarily any particular belt holder, any sanctioned title holder from any particular committee. This endows the lineal with a type of purity of purpose... It eschews that which is controlled by some sanctioned middle man with a belt to hand out in favor of the champion perceived to be the best by the general public. Now before I address your post? Please keep in mind that I am not trying to say my understanding has primacy here... I am not claiming absolute knowledge...

Regarding chronology: there are often issues when a champion claims to still hold the title, versus a new lineal... But these issues always resolved themselves and, there has never really been a reason why you cannot have two lineals for a borrowed amount of time while other issues are sorted, hence, the chronology imo can be loose, as long as eventually one lineal emerges clearly. So, for example, if it was established that Holyfield was later beat by lewis, why not use this retrospect to say McCall was the lineal when he beat Lewis?

The lineal is based on consensus. Its not insane. It does not have to even have primacy over other titles... it is reserved for the people... the fans... And yes this is an opinion, an opinion based on consensus. why do you think the lineal has to have primacy over over other title categories? The opinions and consensus are based on lineage, based on the fighter who beats the guy who had the title(s), its not just wild speculation. Incidentally I am not arguing that the lineal should have primacy over other categories, just that it belongs to the man who beats the best... and the best, in the case of the lineal is the people's champion. When have people been outrageous and had someone not deserving as the lineal?

Look at the history of the lineal: it has always resolved itself, even when more than one claimant was involved, always a champion calibre fighter was the lineal, never was it a political decision... The lineal does not have to even have a relationship to other belts, organizations, etc.. It is elegant and simple: "establish who the best is, the man who beats him is the lineal." What is wrong with the fans determining this? The other types of belts etc are fine... The lineal belongs to the fans. And the fans have a right to reestablish a lineal holder any way that does not voilate the lineal definition...even if it means going back in time to establish that one fighter prevailed against another fighter and therefore the guy that beat this guy had a claim to the lineal.

I can't think of an analogy regarding sanctioning and the lineal other than to say: In boxing there is room for exactitude regarding belt holders, undisputed/disputed, promoters, new belts, promoters... But there is also room for the simple, elegant rules that govern manhood and settling disputes in an ancient way. The object of the lineal is so sim ple it does not interfere with other stipulations. Your king of the hill until someone knocks you off the hill... how the lineal gets established otherwise, and junctions where there was some question of whom the claim belonged to IMO are much to do about nothing. If the lineal had faltered I would think otherwise, it has not, there have been times where there was more than one claim to the lineal, and it gets sorted.

[Willow The Wisp]

I am just trying to understand things lol but my understanding is that the lineal as stated "the man who beats the best becomes the best." Within that understanding there has never been a reason to strictly define the lineal, despite the tendency for people to want definitions with exactitude. The lineal was more the common man's celebration of the guy who licked all the rest of the competition. Most times this was simply, the guy that beat the present fighter thought to be the best...; Not necessarily any particular belt holder, any sanctioned title holder from any particular committee. This endows the lineal with a type of purity of purpose... It eschews that which is controlled by some sanctioned middle man with a belt to hand out in favor of the champion perceived to be the best by the general public. Now before I address your post? Please keep in mind that I am not trying to say my understanding has primacy here... I am not claiming absolute knowledge...

Regarding chronology: there are often issues when a champion claims to still hold the title, versus a new lineal... But these issues always resolved themselves and, there has never really been a reason why you cannot have two lineals for a borrowed amount of time while other issues are sorted, hence, the chronology imo can be loose, as long as eventually one lineal emerges clearly. So, for example, if it was established that Holyfield was later beat by lewis, why not use this retrospect to say McCall was the lineal when he beat Lewis?

The lineal is based on consensus. Its not insane. It does not have to even have primacy over other titles... it is reserved for the people... the fans... And yes this is an opinion, an opinion based on consensus. why do you think the lineal has to have primacy over over other title categories? The opinions and consensus are based on lineage, based on the fighter who beats the guy who had the title(s), its not just wild speculation. Incidentally I am not arguing that the lineal should have primacy over other categories, just that it belongs to the man who beats the best... and the best, in the case of the lineal is the people's champion. When have people been outrageous and had someone not deserving as the lineal?

Look at the history of the lineal: it has always resolved itself, even when more than one claimant was involved, always a champion calibre fighter was the lineal, never was it a political decision... The lineal does not have to even have a relationship to other belts, organizations, etc.. It is elegant and simple: "establish who the best is, the man who beats him is the lineal." What is wrong with the fans determining this? The other types of belts etc are fine... The lineal belongs to the fans. And the fans have a right to reestablish a lineal holder any way that does not voilate the lineal definition...even if it means going back in time to establish that one fighter prevailed against another fighter and therefore the guy that beat this guy had a claim to the lineal.

I can't think of an analogy regarding sanctioning and the lineal other than to say: In boxing there is room for exactitude regarding belt holders, undisputed/disputed, promoters, new belts, promoters... But there is also room for the simple, elegant rules that govern manhood and settling disputes in an ancient way. The object of the lineal is so sim ple it does not interfere with other stipulations. Your king of the hill until someone knocks you off the hill... how the lineal gets established otherwise, and junctions where there was some question of whom the claim belonged to IMO are much to do about nothing. If the lineal had faltered I would think otherwise, it has not, there have been times where there was more than one claim to the lineal, and it gets sorted.

This is a well crafted and well considered response from one of my favorite correspondents. My intention is not to sound dismissive in any way. I would simply encourage respect for the lineal passing (and occasional repair) of the modern title, owing to its value and, frankly, miraculous maintenance over some 150 years. So I tend to jump.

[billeau2]

This is a well crafted and well considered response from one of my favorite correspondents. My intention is not to sound dismissive in any way. I would simply encourage respect for the lineal passing (and occasional repair) of the modern title, owing to its value and, frankly, miraculous maintenance over some 150 years. So I tend to jump.

Thank you Wisp. Like you intimate Lineage should never be trivialized... I know this from studying the Japanese Arts which are very precise regarding the rules about when a lineage is broken. We are talking arts with a documented unbroken line of succession, a few over 500 years old. All it takes is one generation with no head of the lineage... And Pop goes the weasel so to say lol.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for the mechanism of how the lineage is determined with the lineal. like the Japanese there is an innate simplicity to the process that is commendable. I believe that when you have such a mechanism issues can easily be resolved as a testament to the system.

[QueensburyRules]

Thank you Wisp. Like you intimate Lineage should never be trivialized... I know this from studying the Japanese Arts which are very precise regarding the rules about when a lineage is broken. We are talking arts with a documented unbroken line of succession, a few over 500 years old. All it takes is one generation with no head of the lineage... And Pop goes the weasel so to say lol.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for the mechanism of how the lineage is determined with the lineal. like the Japanese there is an innate simplicity to the process that is commendable. I believe that when you have such a mechanism issues can easily be resolved as a testament to the system.

- - Japanese was the most advanced nation in the 1500s because they as a populace do "the math" better than better than the Western populace whose public education institutions do silly putty kinds of math.

[Willie Pep 229]

- - Japanese was the most advanced nation in the 1500s because they as a populace do "the math" better than better than the Western populace whose public education institutions do silly putty kinds of math.

By the 1500s Arabs and Persins were already using algebra. What advantage did the Japanese have that the Arabs didn't?

[QueensburyRules]

By the 1500s Arabs and Persins were already using algebra. What advantage did the Japanese have that the Arabs didn't?

- - They "also" had pristine functioning big cities and had never been defeated in war unlike the Arabs and Persians.

[Willie Pep 229]

- - They "also" had pristine functioning big cities and had never been defeated in war unlike the Arabs and Persians.

Yea, hidden away on an island and protected by a tsunami. Pure luck, not prowess.

The Roman's pitched a tent in the middle of an interstate highway called the Mediterranean and when the pressure came conquered the world.

Your guys hid (Japanese isolation) and when they finally tried to make their move for glory they got seriously crushed.

Eh! Just not as impressed with them as you are.

P.S. Highest ratio of pre-teen suicides world wide. That's pre-teen mind you. Those ******** math tests are difficult.

[QueensburyRules]

Yea, hidden away on an island and protected by a tsunami. Pure luck, not prowess.

The Roman's pitched a tent in the middle of an interstate highway called the Mediterranean and when the pressure came conquered the world.

Your guys hid (Japanese isolation) and when they finally tried to make their move for glory they got seriously crushed.

Eh! Just not as impressed with them as you are.

P.S. Highest ratio of pre-teen suicides world wide. That's pre-teen mind you. Those ******** math tests are difficult.

- - Tiny Island seizing control over the largest theater of war in history, the Pacific Ocean territories at worst speaks of their ultimate overreach no different than the Romans of yore and the US of today.

And your point is?