Fury's retirements and the lineal championship

[kafkod]

- - If Lewie comes out of retirement so Jake Paul can beat him up, Lineal Loons say Jake the new Lineal Champ.

Lineal loons were only a controversial split points decision away from having to accept an MMA fighter becoming Lineal HW champ in his first ever boxing match

[Willow The Wisp]

Lineal loons were only a controversial split points decision away from having to accept an MMA fighter becoming Lineal HW champ in his first ever boxing match

Still nothing convincing from the history denial noobs.
A massive underdog can win any title if he wins the fight challenging for one - Doesn't have to be the real (lineal) one.

Of course, with Francis Ngannou; if you know anything about him, he's never had a pro fight where he wasn't boxing. Though one of the best fighters in MMAs short history, you can fit what he knows about wrestling, submission grappling & kickboxing in a thimble; and he's never had a martial arts class in his life. He's a boxer who's trained to check kicks & stuff takedowns. All of which you knew.
As Joshua informed us; the talent pool's deeper in high pay ranks.

[Willie Pep 229]

No, we were not close at all. We would never have accepted it.

We don't consider Briggs a lineal champion either and history will not remember him as one.

The non-lineal loons (formally called sanctioning body bitches) keep pushing this lineage thing.

The linear MQB champion stopped with Tunney; and a figurative and convenient definition of "lineal" has replaced it ever since

No Briggs thank you.

If SBs can strip and award titles at liesure, history can ignore breaks in the "lineage," as it likes.

P.S. Kafkod, What fight were you referring to regarding an MMA fighter winning the lineal title in his first boxing match?

[JAB5239]

- - If Lewie comes out of retirement so Jake Paul can beat him up, Lineal Loons say Jake the new Lineal Champ.

Why? Lewis retired and stayed that way. Jake would have to beat Usyk to be considered lineal. It's not that difficult. Unless you started drinking at 8am, like you do daily.

[Willow The Wisp]

No, we were not close at all. We would never have accepted it.

We don't consider Briggs a lineal champion either and history will not remember him as one.

The non-lineal loons (formally called sanctioning body bitches) keep pushing this lineage thing.

The linear MQB champion stopped with Tunney; and a figurative and convenient definition of "lineal" has replaced it ever since

No Briggs thank you.

If SBs can strip and award titles at liesure, history can ignore breaks in the "lineage," as it likes.

P.S. Kafkod, What fight were you referring to regarding an MMA fighter winning the lineal title in his first boxing match?

On Briggs:
Just going back a little, Patterson lost the one real title to Liston, who lost it to Ali, who lost it to Frazier, who lost it Foreman, who lost it to Ali, who lost it to Leon, who lost it back to Ali, who lost it to Holmes, who lost to it Michael Spinks, who lost to it Tyson, who lost it to Douglas, who lost it to Holyfield, who lost it to Bowe, who lost it back to Holyfield, who lost it to Moorer, who lost it to Foreman, who lost it to Briggs, who lost it to Lewis.

Yes, Briggs was an actual Heavyweight Champion of the world.
Moreover, he, along with Marvin Hart, Primo Carnera, Leon Spinks; for the very same reason that Jim Braddock & Michael Moorer have been accepted; WILL be inducted into the Hall of fame when the time is right, in recognition of their rare achievement in wearing the one, real crown.

And no.....
Ken Norton, John Tate, Mike Weaver, Michael Dokes, Gerrie Coetzee, Tim Witherspoon, Monte Masters, Pinklon Thomas, Greg Page, Tony Tubbs, Trevor Berbick, Bonecrusher Smith, Tony Tucker, Francisco Damiani, Ray Mercer, Mike Bernardo, Bert Cooper, Adilson Rodrigues, Jimmy Thunder, Tommy Morrison, Michael Bentt, Herbie Hide, Oliver McCall, Bruce Seldon, Frank Bruno, Henry Akinwande, Aussie Joe Bugner, Vitali Klitschko, Chris Byrd, Frans Botha, John Ruiz, Roy Jones, Corrie Sanders, Lamon Brewster, Nicolai Valuev, Siarhei Liakhovich, Oleg Maskaev, Ruslan Chagaev, Sultan Ibragimov, Samuel Peter, David Haye, Alexander Povetkin, Bermine Stiverne, Deontay Wilder, Charles Martin, Lucas Brown, Anthony Joshua, Joseph Parker, Mahmoud (Manuel) Charr, Andy Ruiz Jr., Trevor Bryan, Shawn Laughery, Daniel Dubois and Kubrat Pulev were NEVER the Heavyweight Champion of the World.

History can never be influenced by fiction; regardless of how gullible the public might be. That just never works out well.

This is not a debate. Only an attempt to educate.

[billeau2]

No, that's not what I'm saying.

The problem we are having here is that you are using different definitions, or conceptions, of what a lineal champion is, as though they were interchangeable, and they are not.

What I've been saying is that if your definition of a lineal champion is based on the lineage - man-who-beat-the-man - then Wlad was never the lineal champion, because Lennox Lewis was universally recognised as the man, and Wlad never beat Lennox. And if it's based on "consensus", then it lacks the objective, legal authority of the alphabet belts. Because only the alphabet orgs have the legal authority to award or withdraw their title belts.

I'm also saying that there has been no such thing as an actual lineal title, which is awarded to the lineal champion, since Ring Magazine retired their lineal title belt back in the 1990s, because they accepted that, with 4 recognised title belts, lineage could no longer be used to objectively decide who the real champion was.

If there had been an actual lineal title, which could only be won and lost in the ring, and Fury had won that title from Wlad, then nobody would have been able to argue with Fury when he came out of retirement claiming to still hold the lineal title. But there was no actual title. Fury tried to pretend that there was, but his lineal championship claim was really based on an appeal to consensus, and there was no consensus on who the lineal champ was at that point.

I have been consistent with my definition, explained it carefully, gave a context for it and even rooted it in the proper type of socio-poitical structure... That is called being thorough. Your just thinking on a very basic level. And it all comes back to what you claim is a misunderstanding now lol! I am not buying it but hey, its all good to disagree. I think you are slowly conceding what the lineal really is about, and then conveniently retreating into a viel of craziness stating that what is a different type of authority is "better" . YOU treat it like another alphabet and then say it doesn't hold up... duh! No shiat sherlock! It was never meant to be like an authorized title with an independent body... So no, I call BS on this firs paragraph. It is nice to come to an understanding when possible, but you canot have it both ways: either you see the difference and respect it, or you assume what you are assuming and disagree.

Maybe you realize the lineal is different, but do not want to concede this point, whatever lol... it we sub "different" for interchangable. then good for you! Then? After arguing pointlessness, claiming all kinds of things, all you are doing is finally realizing things that you should have seen pages ago.

Then you go right back into pointless arguments again the next paragraph. kafKod when did I say the Lineal had political authority? Details matter (Jack Reacher)... So this second paragraph is pointless. So is the lineal when not needed. Lennox Lewis was in no position to fight, so the lineal resolved down the line... SO? Who cares? Political titles have certain Epistemological needs, the lineal is a consensus based title used to define the best fighter. It can be traced... when it is unresolved, it is unresolved until it is resolved again. What is the big deal with this?

Regarding the rest of the post? Retirement and when there is a conflicting claim always become people's focal points when questioning the lineal... why? The lineal resolves! it always does and will. And when there are alphabet soups with champions all around, someone will eventually ask who beat the best guy out there to become the champ? and that is the power of the lineal.

To people like you? if the alphabets say Manuel Charr is a champion you do not question it and then try to take the voice away from those who respect the lineage of the lineal WHEN it is needed. And BTW again! you contradict yourself. If Fury's claim was an appeal to consensus GOOD!!! thats a big part of the idea. A consensus of boxing fans and BTW Fury was in fact the second best, and the best at the time after all! Go figure!

[billeau2]

No, we were not close at all. We would never have accepted it.

We don't consider Briggs a lineal champion either and history will not remember him as one.

The non-lineal loons (formally called sanctioning body bitches) keep pushing this lineage thing.

The linear MQB champion stopped with Tunney; and a figurative and convenient definition of "lineal" has replaced it ever since

No Briggs thank you.

If SBs can strip and award titles at liesure, history can ignore breaks in the "lineage," as it likes.

P.S. Kafkod, What fight were you referring to regarding an MMA fighter winning the lineal title in his first boxing match?

It is like people focus on a point of contention that is virtually meaningless. If Lewis came out of retirement and fought Paul and lost, as Queenie posits, then the minute Paul fought a legit training heavyweight and got creamed we would have someone in contention, or as the lineal title holder... Eventually If the best fight the best to be the best, then the two best UNRESOLVED title claimants would fight and resolve the Lineal!

Am I the one of a few posters that sees how ridiculous it is to wave this retirement clause around as though it is a weakness to the lineal? If anything, when pressured by the fans, it would be a GOOD thing because it resolves who the best fighter is! I know you and Jab understand this, I just do not get why sane rational people do not get it. The lineal is incentive...; the retirement clause is probably there to make sure the former title holder is beaten... It is in fact an ingenious way to keep things in tact, not a weakness.

Really evil criminals and the lineal have something in common here (careful Kafkod here comes another analogy you can claim is poor after you then reiterate what the analogy was intending to establish...) Both hate loose ends. The retirement clause is secondary but it cleans things up, even at the expense of making the title unresolved for a period of time... Its like the universe does not come apart when the lineal is unresolved for a bit...

[billeau2]

Why? Lewis retired and stayed that way. Jake would have to beat Usyk to be considered lineal. It's not that difficult. Unless you started drinking at 8am, like you do daily.

So: Lewis comes back... a shell of his former self. Paul beats him. You have Usyk who beat the present claimant. One of two things happen: Either the fans ask for Usyk to fight Paul, or the fans decide as a consensus that Usyk beat the best in this situation and should be considered the best of the best. Lets say Paul was actually really good and Lewis came back in tip top and was still burning the barn down: Now there is INCENTIVE, pressure for Usyk to fight Paul! which is the whole idea of the Lineal in the first place.

As I posted Pep, I do not get why sane people do not see this... I understand Queenie because I did use the word "sane."

[billeau2]

On Briggs:
Just going back a little, Patterson lost the one real title to Liston, who lost it to Ali, who lost it to Frazier, who lost it Foreman, who lost it to Ali, who lost it to Leon, who lost it back to Ali, who lost it to Holmes, who lost to it Michael Spinks, who lost to it Tyson, who lost it to Douglas, who lost it to Holyfield, who lost it to Bowe, who lost it back to Holyfield, who lost it to Moorer, who lost it to Foreman, who lost it to Briggs, who lost it to Lewis.

Yes, Briggs was an actual Heavyweight Champion of the world.
Moreover, he, along with Marvin Hart, Primo Carnera, Leon Spinks; for the very same reason that Jim Braddock & Michael Moorer have been accepted; WILL be inducted into the Hall of fame when the time is right, in recognition of their rare achievement in wearing the one, real crown.

And no.....
Ken Norton, John Tate, Mike Weaver, Michael Dokes, Gerrie Coetzee, Tim Witherspoon, Monte Masters, Pinklon Thomas, Greg Page, Tony Tubbs, Trevor Berbick, Bonecrusher Smith, Tony Tucker, Francisco Damiani, Ray Mercer, Mike Bernardo, Bert Cooper, Adilson Rodrigues, Jimmy Thunder, Tommy Morrison, Michael Bentt, Herbie Hide, Oliver McCall, Bruce Seldon, Frank Bruno, Henry Akinwande, Aussie Joe Bugner, Vitali Klitschko, Chris Byrd, Frans Botha, John Ruiz, Roy Jones, Corrie Sanders, Lamon Brewster, Nicolai Valuev, Siarhei Liakhovich, Oleg Maskaev, Ruslan Chagaev, Sultan Ibragimov, Samuel Peter, David Haye, Alexander Povetkin, Bermine Stiverne, Deontay Wilder, Charles Martin, Lucas Brown, Anthony Joshua, Joseph Parker, Mahmoud (Manuel) Charr, Andy Ruiz Jr., Trevor Bryan, Shawn Laughery, Daniel Dubois and Kubrat Pulev were NEVER the Heavyweight Champion of the World.

History can never be influenced by fiction; regardless of how gullible the public might be. That just never works out well.

This is not a debate. Only an attempt to educate.

Great Post!!

Combatives will always be different from pure sports... a hybrid at best. People that understand combatives probably would not question the lineal if they were to understand the excellent point of your post...

Lets say I use formal logic to poke holes in some formal definition of the lineal and your tree... Alas, it would be besides the point... Even if one could. Lets say someone comes up with a retirement scenario that makes the lineal unresolved and look weak, impossible I know... But lets be extremely generous here. This scenario happens to be a favorite so ok... the retirement clause creates a problem...

Even still, you cannot have a combative line based on anything but progress and/or the progress of the greatest fighters in the line. You need lines of transmission! Always. We need a record of the best fighters considered traditionally in boxing, the heavyweight champion. Without such a line, we get garbage. Which is what we see. In martial arts, Chinese and Japanese Arts are based on transmission. When transmission is lost, things get lost and the art becomes useless. In boxing this results in paper champions. The lineal being incentive to call these champions out to unify... Which the alphabets make virtually impossible. Hence the lineal is good for boxing, it incentivizes tradition, a line of transmission based on the best, and unification. Your post says it all...

[Willie Pep 229]

So: Lewis comes back... a shell of his former self. Paul beats him. You have Usyk who beat the present claimant. One of two things happen: Either the fans ask for Usyk to fight Paul, or the fans decide as a consensus that Usyk beat the best in this situation and should be considered the best of the best. Lets say Paul was actually really good and Lewis came back in tip top and was still burning the barn down: Now there is INCENTIVE, pressure for Usyk to fight Paul! which is the whole idea of the Lineal in the first place.

As I posted Pep, I do not get why sane people do not see this... I understand Queenie because I did use the word "sane."

Under those circumstances Paul would have to go through Usyk.

The question would be whether Paul deserves a shot via beating a past-it Fury.

Paul would probably have to beat at least one more ranked fighter after Fury.