Heavyweight Lineal Assist

[Willie Pep 229]

Yes he did, he said he never announced Hart as champion. and that he had no authority to do so.He just raised his hand as the winner.

He (Jeffries) did say before the fight that in his opinion that the fight was for his title.

He retracted the statement three days later.

My conjectured is . . .

He (Jeffries) was pulled aside by the money men and they said "What the hell are you doing there is money you ne made off this."

I offer this conjecture because when you read Jeffries actual retraction he changes his story and his comment is: "Hart needs to fight a few more opponents and then we can consider him champion." Translation: Let's have a few more big $ fights before we declare a champion.

Hart then fights Tommy Burns and Burns considered himself champion (and being from Canada) didn't bother to look back. He claimed the title and ignored Jeffries and the American press.

If we take Jeffries at his word Burns didn't do anything Hart hadn't done, winning but one fight with a guy (Hart) the American press was waffling on to begin with. So his claim holds no water if Hart's doesn't.

But Burns was smart he took the title and took it on tour giving no concern what the 'experts' might argued. He won over the fans and with it recognition as champion.

In regards to the lineal title I believe that winning it in the ring is the number one method of identifying the champion.

But I also believe fan and media recognition comes next.

So the rest of the above list should read:

Ali
L Spinks
Ali
Holmes
M Spinks
Tyson
Douglas
Holyfield
Bowe
Holyfield
Moorer
Foreman
Briggs
Lewis
Rahman
Lewis
Wald
Fury

While geeks like us, like to argue technicalities, acculmation by the media and fans trumps those arguments. BS posters may think their opinion counts but the rest of the planet isn't taking notice.

This goes for Schmeling, Sharkey, and Patterson as well.

History has spoken, this is how it will be remembered.

[QueensburyRules]

Yes he did, he said he never announced Hart as champion. and that he had no authority to do so.He just raised his hand as the winner.

- - The dominant era heavywt champ has the authority to do as he pleases.

He certainly don't need to consult with the nattering nabobs of nincompoopy.

[The Old LefHook]

I lean more toward inclusion than exclusion but if the goal is make a strict list of pretty much undisputable lineals this one's good.

You can go harder though. I'm a bit out of practice with lineal and do not have access to my notes currently. I guess I could search the forum, but it's harder outside of your account. Finding Marchegiano's thread without being logged into Marchegiano is pretty hard. Suck ass search feature. So this is from the hip and a bunch of "If I recall correctly"

John L can be cut. He was a fair and clear LPRR champion but his QB championship comes off a draw. Which is a bit BS because who wins a vacant title on a draw? US champ vs UK champ, fight end in draw, we all call John the first lineal for it. If you're going to be hard about it maybe Corbett is the first lineal.

Schmeling can be considered just a claimant given he hadn't actually gathered all the olden titles and Sharkey was not a champion yet. Sharkey did gather all the oldens when he became champ...after Max.

Those are the only two I can think of and it'd be kind of bold to cut them, but cutting Holmes is a bit bold imo too. It's more in my nature to include guys like Maher and Tom Sharkey than to go the other way...which is admittedly just a bold because who TF am I to tell the world nah, the lineal list we've agreed on for like 100 years is wrong

There are several areas of trouble and some contradictions in my reasoning. I let Frazier slide who was only lineal after he whipped Clay, but I cut Holmes for the same reason and cut the list off at Holmes. You point to more inconsistencies.

Fortunately, in a way, where I cut the list off does not matter to the concept in this first tentative exercise. I can always extend and add on. According to the Wikipeja source I used, Holmes would have been next. His era seemed more fragmented than the preceding ones to me. That might be a mis-impression. After that, there were the absurdities of fighters like John Ruiz and Akinwande (among others) being heavyweight champions multiple times.

I did not plan very well. I started to do lineals and non lineals together, but changed midway to lineals only. Then I realized not all lineal champs had been lineal champs their entire reign. In that case I decided to include their entire reign, not just the lineal part of it, when calculating the length of their reigns. It is hard to settle on a group of parameters that satisfies everyone, or even oneself. Sacrifices have to be made. One has to lay down the law.

Since I have already dumbly done the work, and it was laborious, I don't want to redo it to include your sagacious suggestions right now. I even have to keep old John L. this time around. We always think that next time around will be more exact and proper than the sloppy job we just did.

* * * * *

A day later---

Quite a few objections and corrections in other posts. Fortunately, they do not interfere. There is no need to fix them. So I adjust again. The point is mathematical, and remains that, whomever I use. Instead of lineal, I now merely reform my criteria to mean, "These are the historically accepted champions up until Clay regained from Spinks."

If my lineal champions list was amiss, under the new criterion I believe everyone fits. It was not a crucial matter. Sorry if I conveyed that nebulously. Thanks for everyone's help in straightening me out again. This time there was an escape hatch.

Wikipeja lists how many days each champ was champ. The only thing here attributable to me is the final summary.

Heavyweight Champions	Length of Reign in days
Sullivan	2566
Corbett	1652
Fitzsimmons	814
Jefferies	2164
Hart	235
Burns	1037
Johnson	2291
Willard	1551
Dempsey	1522
Tunney	667
Schmeling	531
Sharkey	373
Carnera	350
Baer	364
Braddock	740
Louis	4270
Charles	261
Walcott	433
Marciano	1312
Patterson	938
Johansson	360
Patterson	827
Liston	270
Clay	962
Frazier	1071
Foreman	646
Clay	1204
Spinks	181
Clay	398

Count n=29 distinct reigns

Sum Σn=29990 days
Minimum=181
Maximum=4270
Mean x̅=1034
Median x˜=814
Standard Deviation σ=881

* Standard Deviation σ=645 without Louis (just as an example).

[The Old LefHook]

This link may provide a look at the Bell curve generated by the data. It works me.

https://www.hackmath.net/en/calculat...draw=Calculate

[The Old LefHook]

He (Jeffries) did say before the fight that in his opinion that the fight was for his title.

He retracted the statement three days later.

My conjectured is . . .

He (Jeffries) was pulled aside by the money men and they said "What the hell are you doing there is money you ne made off this."

I offer this conjecture because when you read Jeffries actual retraction he changes his story and his comment is: "Hart needs to fight a few more opponents and then we can consider him champion." Translation: Let's have a few more big $ fights before we declare a champion.

Hart then fights Tommy Burns and Burns considered himself champion (and being from Canada) didn't bother to look back. He claimed the title and ignored Jeffries and the American press.

If we take Jeffries at his word Burns didn't do anything Hart hadn't done, winning but one fight with a guy (Hart) the American press was waffling on to begin with. So his claim holds no water if Hart's doesn't.

But Burns was smart he took the title and took it on tour giving no concern what the 'experts' might argued. He won over the fans and with it recognition as champion.

In regards to the lineal title I believe that winning it in the ring is the number one method of identifying the champion.

But I also believe fan and media recognition comes next.

So the rest of the above list should read:

Ali
L Spinks
Ali
Holmes
M Spinks
Tyson
Douglas
Holyfield
Bowe
Holyfield
Moorer
Foreman
Briggs
Lewis
Rahman
Lewis
Wald
Fury

While geeks like us, like to argue technicalities, acculmation by the media and fans trumps those arguments. BS posters may think their opinion counts but the rest of the planet isn't taking notice.

This goes for Schmeling, Sharkey, and Patterson as well.

History has spoken, this is how it will be remembered.

The extended list is what I had in mind all the time. Exactly who to include is the hard problem. No man alive will satisfy this bunch. Vultures waiting for a nitpicked bone. Anyway, who was the actual champion was pretty easy up to Clay reclaims from Spinks. Also please refresh my memory how Vlad became lineal and how Briggs got in there.

P.S. Fury cannot go on this list because we do not yet know his final tally.

[Willie Pep 229]

The extended list is what I had in mind all the time. Exactly who to include is the hard problem. No man alive will satisfy this bunch. Vultures waiting for a nitpicked bone. Anyway, who was the actual champion was pretty easy up to Clay reclaims from Spinks. Also please refresh my memory how Vlad became lineal and how Briggs got in there.

P.S. Fury cannot go on this list because we do not yet know his final tally.

Briggs beats Foreman, then loses to Lewis.

Wald is the most questionable entry since Tommy Burns. Much like Burns he earns the title through multiple defenses that eventually earns him recognition from the crowd. A weak claim no doubt but like Tommy Burns at least the recognition was earned in the ring and not merely assigned.

Re Fury: I don't agree. I am not saying that Fury deserves the recognition but he's got it already and no matter what next week brings he will be remembered as a champion and not merely a belt holder.

Sometimes the fight game is just plain unfair. Better fighters sometime never get their opportunity while others get recognition they really don't deserve.

P.S. Oliver McCall is another enigma I am ambivalent about. Lewis was not yet undisputed but would be soon be the unquestioned champion. I wonder how it would have played out if McCall had beat up a few 'bums' (defenses) before losing his 'title' back to Lewis?

Certainly ain't no science here.

What is history, but lies agreed upon.

[BattlingNelson]

Briggs beats Foreman, then loses to Lewis.

Wald is the most questionable entry since Tommy Burns. Much like Burns he earns the title through multiple defenses that eventually earns him recognition from the crowd. A weak claim no doubt but like Tommy Burns at least the recognition was earned in the ring and not merely assigned.

Re Fury: I don't agree. I am not saying that Fury deserves the recognition but he's got it already and no matter what next week brings he will be remembered as a champion and not merely a belt holder.

Sometimes the fight game is just plain unfair. Better fighters sometime never get their opportunity while others get recognition they really don't deserve.

P.S. Oliver McCall is another enigma I am ambivalent about. Lewis was not yet undisputed but would be soon be the unquestioned champion. I wonder how it would have played out if McCall had beat up a few 'bums' (defenses) before losing his 'title' back to Lewis?

Certainly ain't no science here.

What is history, but lies agreed upon.

Wlad laid claim to lineage by beating the no. 3. ranked HW in Chagaev. Wlad was no. 1 and his brother Vitali was no.2.

The normal claim to lineage after the retirement or vacating from the previous titleholder, is for the no.1 and 2 ranked contenders to fight or number 1 and 3 if special circumstances occur.

Basically that's why Marvin Hart's claim is suspect IMO.




How to sort out lineage claim between AJ and Fury idk. Fury made an official retirement following his positive PED test came public.... Gee I'd like to see a discussion of that. I'm guessing Cliff Rold has written about it? Cliff? crold1

[Willie Pep 229]

Wlad laid claim to lineage by beating the no. 3. ranked HW in Chagaev. Wlad was no. 1 and his brother Vitali was no.2.

The normal claim to lineage after the retirement or vacating from the previous titleholder, is for the no.1 and 2 ranked contenders to fight or number 1 and 3 if special circumstances occur.

Basically that's why Marvin Hart's claim is suspect IMO.




How to sort out lineage claim between AJ and Fury idk. Fury made an official retirement following his positive PED test came public.... Gee I'd like to see a discussion of that. I'm guessing Cliff Rold has written about it? Cliff? crold1

Yes this worked fine for Sharkey-Schmeling and Patterson-Moore but that was before the alphabet boys mucked it all up.

So who had Wald ranked #1? - Not meant to challenge your point but you can see that by the time of Wald things had gotten messy. Was it The Ring or were both fighters #1 and #3 on all the scantioning bodies lists?

Also in regards to Hart, I guess one could argue that it was Jeffries who made the call as to who was #1 and #2. Certainly not and argument i want to defend.

Re Fury: I would argue that you are correct regarding his on again off again on again behavior has diminished his status not to mention his 'one' defense but three things worked to his favor:

the media loves his silliness; AJ was exposed by Ruiz; and his fights are more exciting than AJ's.

Not that these are the correct reasons to choose a champion but sometimes they are the reasons we do.

[BattlingNelson]

Yes this worked fine for Sharkey-Schmeling and Patterson-Moore but that was before the alphabet boys mucked it all up.

So who had Wald ranked #1? - Not meant to challenge your point but you can see that by the time of Wald things had gotten messy. Was it The Ring or were both fighters #1 and #3 on all the scantioning bodies lists?

Rankings of the alphabet boys (except the IBO) is not usefull at all since they don't rank champions of rival organizations.

The Klit bros was ranked 1 and 2 by any independent credible magazine, blog, website. Of that there can be no doubt. Chagaev was no. 3 at the ring magazine and likely also everywhere else following his decisive win over Valuev.

Also in regards to Hart, I guess one could argue that it was Jeffries who made the call as to who was #1 and #2. Certainly not and argument i want to defend.

Again. I'm not having a horse in this, but Root was a LHW. I know that doesn't say that he wasn't the second ranked HW, but surely there was a more deserving HW out there? I don't know straight of the bat, but surely someone here can name a more viable contender?

Re Fury: I would argue that you are correct regarding his on again off again on again behavior has diminished his status not to mention his 'one' defense but three things worked to his favor:

the media loves his silliness; AJ was exposed by Ruiz; and his fights are more exciting than AJ's.

Not that these are the correct reasons to choose a champion but sometimes they are the reasons we do.

Yep. Point is that Fury's claim to lineage isn't undisputed. Hence why I'd like Clif Rold's take even though he isn't faultless (as for example in regards of Zsolt Erdei's being stripped of lineage). Cliff is methodical and always present his arguments. You can then agree or disagree.

[QueensburyRules]

the media loves his silliness; AJ was exposed by Ruiz; and his fights are more exciting than AJ's.

- - Actually AJ and Fat Andy exposed the boxing media and fighters themselves when Fat Andy the only heavy with the stones capable of manning up to AJ in his American Debut.

But Hearns was seen as a cheeky upstart never mind he was birthed by a prominent British Boxing promoter still at the head of Matchroom boxing. Shirley Winkle a brilliant example of Eddie coming to America to make the Deyonce fight that proved impossible in spite of silly $$$ Eddie had to throw around back then.