lets clarify the power of the lineal...

[billeau2]

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice. If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice. Sorry, yes that is a bit of Rush.

I don't have a problem with folks talking about lineage or liking it. I just kinda got dragged in by voicing it's just a popularity contest. It does seem to me, bright or slow, dudes a bit old than me seem to want lineal to be more than it is but nothing more than the popularity contest holds any water. The popularity

... TF are you guys talking about? They see the belts, they look up the belts, when you look up boxing and champions you don't hit a **** ton of lineage links. It's all body history ****. You need to add lineal to your search bro to get lineal bull. On TV, they see, hear, lineal often? Nope but they will hear and see WBC/a/o ya know.

We come into this sport knowing lineal is not popular nor mainstream. Its something boxing fans teach new boxing fans.

Prestige of lineal quickly loses water when you watch pros scramble time and time again for any body belt while not once making any attempt at lineal. Pros only mention lineal when they don't even have a ring belt to claim. And going back in time it turns out the prestige of Cribbs belt was dead by the 1830s and lost by gamblin dens in the 50s

The great John L whose mystique backs the prestige to this day, name dropped heaps, is nothing more than a promotional campaign who didn't even have to win his fights.

Importance? No one knows about this ****. It's so super important it isn't even flushed out story telling let alone quality history. It can't be important by design. It's a debate feature. May as well tell me p4p matters. Like ****, it's value is having old men debate who should be a singular champion per era.

If I am being super real about it, lineal's value is in veteran fans making new fans feel small.



Nat controlled consensus the same way everyone who presents narrative to a vacuum controls said narrative. I am currently the ancients dude ... uh ... still ... but the historians are not lazy ****s doe ... You don't think I can organize and present these dudes in such as way I have a logical fallacy I can spread through misinformation and lies? Bro, check the lists. Check the lists again for typos. That's GD right dude, there is only one. Everyone else just copy/paste. If I attached narrative to it, it too would be copy/paste every where you search. Once the sources are in line and someone can look up my words from a source that isn't me that game is done and I've won with nothing to contest me.



To that end, I am the only person I know of actually qualified to speak to the line of champions. Including the historians.

The lineal is about a succession of the best fighters beating the best to be the best... People can say it exists, it doesn't, claim it, disparage it... But combatives imo depend upon this succession to have any meaning as a sporting affair. Willow Wisp traces a pure succession of lineal heavyweight champs... It does exist. It may not be spoken of and of course people will try to coopt it.

[billeau2]

Just to flex on this. I am currently debating a man going by Melankomas on another forum. He doesn't know this, but you do. What are the chances he even hears of ol Mel without me prior? So, good thing I did proper research. Should I be found out wrong in the future, that's it, I was simply wrong. Nat told lies. He knew better and penned stories anyway. I could, I did not. I know, for sure, what complete control over a narrative in history looks like and you know that I do.

So much is my control over this narrative even those here who make a hobby out of being my contrarian do not step into that world and outright admit their ignorance. Something unheard of in boxing communities. I have a neutral ground no one is willing to challenge me on. Nat did once too. Nat used that position to spread lies his fans then cling to even when presented with the reality of history.


Finally, semantics, ask me about the historical belt. Ask me about traditions or a traditional title. I'll run with it. Asking me about lineal IS asking about Nat's narrative on champions. It is his term. It is his concept. It come with his flaws. MY historical, traditional, title can't even share the same verbiage as his because that causes people to think I am talking about the same thing he was. I am not. I am talking about what he claimed he was talking about. There is a difference.

Ok so you forever tie Nat with the lineal because he inappropriately coopted it? Im no fan of Nat F, Ring Magazine, etc. Your historical search is indeed incredibly detailed and incredible no debate!

[billeau2]

Just to flex on this. I am currently debating a man going by Melankomas on another forum. He doesn't know this, but you do. What are the chances he even hears of ol Mel without me prior? So, good thing I did proper research. Should I be found out wrong in the future, that's it, I was simply wrong. Nat told lies. He knew better and penned stories anyway. I could, I did not. I know, for sure, what complete control over a narrative in history looks like and you know that I do.

So much is my control over this narrative even those here who make a hobby out of being my contrarian do not step into that world and outright admit their ignorance. Something unheard of in boxing communities. I have a neutral ground no one is willing to challenge me on. Nat did once too. Nat used that position to spread lies his fans then cling to even when presented with the reality of history.


Finally, semantics, ask me about the historical belt. Ask me about traditions or a traditional title. I'll run with it. Asking me about lineal IS asking about Nat's narrative on champions. It is his term. It is his concept. It come with his flaws. MY historical, traditional, title can't even share the same verbiage as his because that causes people to think I am talking about the same thing he was. I am not. I am talking about what he claimed he was talking about. There is a difference.

Yes... You really looked at boxing history as a sports activity from the beginning and I consider myself a fan!

[Marchegiano]

The lineal is about a succession of the best fighters beating the best to be the best... People can say it exists, it doesn't, claim it, disparage it... But combatives imo depend upon this succession to have any meaning as a sporting affair. Willow Wisp traces a pure succession of lineal heavyweight champs... It does exist. It may not be spoken of and of course people will try to coopt it.

I do not claim it doesn't exist anymore than i claimed p4p doesn't exist. They both do and they both share a value; debatable. More exactly my claim is they are a popularity contest.


What doesn't exist is any of the principles anyone has ever made a stand for. More exactly, retirement causing and not causing a vacancy. There is no consistency beyond popular belief there for no rule nor defacto rule but popular belief. Sometimes man who beat the man, sometimes man with the best claim. Sometimes the champion can elect challengers for vacancy, sometimes they can't. Sometimes relative to ratings sometimes isn't. So on.


I didn't say lineal doesn't exist or that people shouldn't care. I told two people arguing about retirement there is nothing consistent beyond popular belief and have been defending ever since.

Important? I don't think so bud. It's as important as p4p. boxing trivia. anecdotal information. I think the state of the belts themselves says more than I ever could about boxing's regard for lineage. I do not mean the body belts. I mean the idea lineal isn't physical is either a lie, or, case in point lineal is not historical. The tangible title, one of them anyway, and what is left of it, last I knew was in Getty stripped to bits because it ended up in a pawn shop. Cribb's title ended up in the hand of a london based gang before it got stripped to bit prior. John had four titles, one survives to this day, none were treated with an iota of importance.

All in all lineal had a short run in reality. Captured the imaginations of the 70s and by the time Fury pulled his ****, educated and turned off the generations to come.



I am convinced the younger and newer fans should know all the champions, hence my work. I am also convinced teaching the champions as they are and lineal are two different versions of history.

[billeau2]

I do not claim it doesn't exist anymore than i claimed p4p doesn't exist. They both do and they both share a value; debatable. More exactly my claim is they are a popularity contest.


What doesn't exist is any of the principles anyone has ever made a stand for. More exactly, retirement causing and not causing a vacancy. There is no consistency beyond popular belief there for no rule nor defacto rule but popular belief. Sometimes man who beat the man, sometimes man with the best claim. Sometimes the champion can elect challengers for vacancy, sometimes they can't. Sometimes relative to ratings sometimes isn't. So on.


I didn't say lineal doesn't exist or that people shouldn't care. I told two people arguing about retirement there is nothing consistent beyond popular belief and have been defending ever since.

Important? I don't think so bud. It's as important as p4p. boxing trivia. anecdotal information. I think the state of the belts themselves says more than I ever could about boxing's regard for lineage. I do not mean the body belts. I mean the idea lineal isn't physical is either a lie, or, case in point lineal is not historical. The tangible title, one of them anyway, and what is left of it, last I knew was in Getty stripped to bits because it ended up in a pawn shop. Cribb's title ended up in the hand of a london based gang before it got stripped to bit prior. John had four titles, one survives to this day, none were treated with an iota of importance.

All in all lineal had a short run in reality. Captured the imaginations of the 70s and by the time Fury pulled his ****, educated and turned off the generations to come.



I am convinced the younger and newer fans should know all the champions, hence my work. I am also convinced teaching the champions as they are and lineal are two different versions of history.

Everybody seems to go right to the retirement clause in the lineal! Lol. I must confess to never feeling it was that important. Like you? Until someone convinces me with good logical analysis why the retirement clause detracts, or even means much of anything, I cannot really think much of it. Maybe our reasons are ironic lol, but I agree that the retirement clause comes across as goofy and I also believe it is a distraction. Who cares if it causes the lineal to be unresolved for a while?

Whether lineal is historical or not... I think it definitely is historical. Lineages are constructions that tie together some tradition. You see the damage much more in aspects that are martial arts related... For example, why Tai Chi looks like it does today when it was a battle field art...

I disagree about the lineal, but I understand your POV. My own POV is that some things only make an appearance when necessary... The lineal only needs to be spoken of when there is too much alphabet soup and when other forms of authority bare abused.

[billeau2]

Some good source materials. Sports Illustrated discussing the lineal: Notice how it applies to the heavyweights... I gues Kafkod's notion of objectivity goes out the window here whoooosh!

https://www.si.com/boxing/2012/11/12...ight-champions

Alas! Information on "retirement" if you read this next link you will see that when one formally "retires" they give up the title... this sounds right to me.

Use these links to refer to arguments in both threads for the lineal.

[kafkod]

Nope.

Are better, more powerful, more known, and most importantly; real.


America started boxing because of politics. Nothing, **** all nothing, absolutely nothing to do with lineage. The entire point was breaking the hold English champions had on titles and exclusivity of their prestige. Like, as opposite of caring about lineage as possible.

We did not allow the bodies, we begged the bodies. Turns out ******** dens are not the best authorities for fairness. I'm going to be super clear, love and respect and bil is not a dumb man, but, this is a ****** position. Since the bodies are corrupt let me throw my lot into an entity that has no pretense of fairness. ... ... ... ... I mean I was clear about how I feel about that ... dumb ... that said Bil is not a dumb dude. Boxing came from promoters and fighters being such unmanageable ****s fans called for something to attempt some level of fairness be brought into the sport.

NO ONE was forced into body recognition. They enjoyed the bodies because juxtaposed to BS like Ring the bodies are pure. I'll type that **** twice. Juxtaposed to ****ing Ring Magazine the sanctioning bodies are a beacon of sport over promotion. That fact and that fact alone is why the bodies have so much more power than the idea of lineal. Tired of Jack Johnson's ****. Tired of Corbett's ****. Tired of champions being able to dictate boxing on their whims; bodies were formed.

Ring did not just make it important. Ring made it up. There's a difference. This is the invention of Nat and like everything else Nat did it is historically inaccurate and those inaccuracies are simply made up bull****. It's named lineal because Ring named it that. Semantics, I can think of a few single words that dictate lines of succession. Nat went with lineal/lineage instead of heir/hierarchy or successor/succession or any other synonym. It differs from monarchy and from the traditions of bare knuckle because Nat didn't know for **** all about BK. Take Egan and Miles, throw in a splash of Fox, you have everything Nat ever wrote with less made up bull**** and just as many mistakes.


Lineal is the only title tired old diehard boxing fans preach is important despite its inability to convince the next generation. Me, kaf, there's a reason I noted the age and it isn;t to be derogatory. these are demographics. Bil and I are American so we'll agree on some **** reflective of that Kaf doesn't. Kafkod and I are abouts peers in age I reckon, 30s?, we are together unconvinced by lineage.









The thing that hurts lineal most is the days of a mysterious glory days era are over. We have all the sources. we have the sources that prove the sources you grew up with are bull. If the lineage, if what is on Cyber Boxing, Wiki, Lineal Champions.com, etc. That list that is copied and pasted everywhere based on Nat's nonsense. If it actually reflected who was really called champion during that time it would have a lot more strength. The very second name in chronological order the ****er got wrong and proceeds to be very wrong through out. Man who beat the man, direct AF and simple AF is basically the only time Nate is right.


We might give more ****s if the **** youse say was true when we looked it up, but it isn't. It's not even very close.

What you seem to be saying here is that Nat Fleischer didn't only invent the term "lineal champion", but he also invented the historically accepted lineage, by deciding which fights he was going to recognise as being fought for his "lineal title". Am I reading you right there?

Btw, if you are in your 30s I'm around 20 years older than you.

[kafkod]

I know it can be confusing and Kafkod, for example, is not wrong to make a distinction between so called "official" titles,,, But we have to be careful and not assume "official" is better, more powerful, rather than simply different. I have tried to make this point about the lineal to no avail... I have faied misrably. I do not want people to change their opinions rather, I wish people just would understand how the lineal really works and not make an apple and oranges comparison.

When the Japanese first fought the Mongols, it was battel field etiquette to announce your rank family and deeds, much like other Feudal systems. The japanese had to change and they did! By the time the Mongols came back the Japanese were silent and deadly and proactive... and anyone who thinks the Japanese won because of weather, I may love you as a fellow poster but you are a fool of the most foolish way a fool can be!

Through the years many things changed in Japan, including the need to kill off the Samurai so they could be embodied as mythos and Japan could have a central state authority. So here is the thing: To this day the state enforces many provisions on what is considered traditional, and authentic... BUT the one thing neccessary for a true Japanese classical art? Is an unbroken lineage. Period. At least 200 years old, or so. Lineage is more powerful than any other provision period!

In America lineage was also valued. That is the basis for any titles to exist! And where as in Japan, it is recognized the importance of this, in this country Murica, and the rest of the boxing world, people have let fighting tradition die... They have allowed sanctioning organizations that are middle men take and coopt the value of lineage. Then? we turn around and give these sanctioning bodies God like boxing status. Ridiculous.

The lineal is named the lineal because it creates a line of succession... No hierarchy, no appeal to outside authority, just an immediate line of succession: The best and second best. Fans brainwashed and broken by the likes of Satanic Bobby Arum and psychopath Don King, are ready and willing to just give the lineal away by denying its very existence, or, claiming RING magazine made it important... How s t tu p i d can people be?

The lineal is the only title that actually matters!!! and it chiefly applies to the premier division of western boxing and little else!! The champ, the people's fighter, is the one who beats the best to become the best... Simple, elegant, no need for any middle man to recognize it... Just as even the Empror of Japan who had to send the Samurai off to die (second world war) would never destroy the true samurai test of an art: its lineage. The Japanese know better, do we?

The reason why the lineal is really the heavyweight champ is because it is assumed no one can beat the biggest lol. But even that principle can be challenged, just ask barbados Walcott or Tunney... The only champ for the people is the biggest, strongest, best... Lol.

That's not what the idea of lineages and lineal champions is all about. The notion that there is one champion, who could beat all the others, head-to-head ... that's a different matter altogether. There are lineages and lineal champions in every division, not just HW.

[kafkod]

Just to flex on this. I am currently debating a man going by Melankomas on another forum. He doesn't know this, but you do. What are the chances he even hears of ol Mel without me prior? So, good thing I did proper research. Should I be found out wrong in the future, that's it, I was simply wrong. Nat told lies. He knew better and penned stories anyway. I could, I did not. I know, for sure, what complete control over a narrative in history looks like and you know that I do.

So much is my control over this narrative even those here who make a hobby out of being my contrarian do not step into that world and outright admit their ignorance. Something unheard of in boxing communities. I have a neutral ground no one is willing to challenge me on. Nat did once too. Nat used that position to spread lies his fans then cling to even when presented with the reality of history.


Finally, semantics, ask me about the historical belt. Ask me about traditions or a traditional title. I'll run with it. Asking me about lineal IS asking about Nat's narrative on champions. It is his term. It is his concept. It come with his flaws. MY historical, traditional, title can't even share the same verbiage as his because that causes people to think I am talking about the same thing he was. I am not. I am talking about what he claimed he was talking about. There is a difference.

What are you talking about there? A different lineage than the one Nat propagated?

[Marchegiano]

Everybody seems to go right to the retirement clause in the lineal! Lol. I must confess to never feeling it was that important. Like you? Until someone convinces me with good logical analysis why the retirement clause detracts, or even means much of anything, I cannot really think much of it. Maybe our reasons are ironic lol, but I agree that the retirement clause comes across as goofy and I also believe it is a distraction. Who cares if it causes the lineal to be unresolved for a while?

Whether lineal is historical or not... I think it definitely is historical. Lineages are constructions that tie together some tradition. You see the damage much more in aspects that are martial arts related... For example, why Tai Chi looks like it does today when it was a battle field art...

I disagree about the lineal, but I understand your POV. My own POV is that some things only make an appearance when necessary... The lineal only needs to be spoken of when there is too much alphabet soup and when other forms of authority bare abused.

Retirement becomes the issues and always has because there is no consistency in post retirement. It is why Nat made up some things and why Ring continued to make up new stipulations after him. Post Lennox, Post Ali, Post Marciano, Post Louis, Post Tunney, Post Corbett, Post Mace, Post King, Post Sayer, Post Cribb, it all looks different. There's a handful of sames but they don't follow one another. Cribb, Jackson, and Figg all handled their retirements similarly but nothing like Corbett, Ward, and Fury. None of those names are chronological contemporaries or even reasonably close.

However, you are sly and seem aware this is more philosophical and semantics than denial of anyone's version of lineal.

So let's drop and the vehicle and speak to the underlying issue:

For as much criticism of historians, especially Nat, I give, I have to keep in mind the plausibility and likelihood I am critical out of ignorance rather than being knowledgeable enough to criticize.

History has many keepers and those styles in story telling found in the storytellers are what ultimately dictate their reach and title with audiences

Nat is a historian. That is the title he's been given. I do not ever see Nat referred to as a chronicler.

I think my work speaks for itself. "Historian" only fits for lack of a better term. Like how the boxing fan refers to "power" when by context it is clear they mean force.

I am a chronicler. As in I list factual events in chronological order. I may be alone in that title in boxing but that is what i have done and that is a starkly different philosophy toward history.

That is to say by definition of the gig a historian interprets history for their reader and rationalizes their interpretations with context. Historians who go along with his narrative of best claim and such simply agree with the interpretation and usually have their own to add to his rather than detract from it.

By the nature of chronicling my work opposes their own.

So, yeah, it's real, and it is real history, and like any history it is through the lens of the teller, Fleischer this time. Since that lens simply does not follow the events as they happened it may be real history but so Apollo boxing Phorbas at the Head of Oak. Real history full of fantasy.


I have no problem with lineal as through nat or an alternative lineal, I recognize all champions and just log them where they are so a lineal list by any lens is really just some fella saying "These are the real champions"

Which is fine, idc, but really not my thing. Not my philosophy for history should be handled.