lets clarify the power of the lineal...

[Marchegiano]

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.

well ****

Yes I am though on Nat. I mean sure you can find some things prior about guys referring to history but it's very different.

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.

Sure, except right now I can start an argument about who the first LHW champion is just by alluding to the idea it's Choy not Root.

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

If you want to call it that. I mean a chronological list of champions is a chronological list of who actually won champion fights that actually happened. If that's lineal to you, sure.

[kafkod]

well ****

Yes I am though on Nat. I mean sure you can find some things prior about guys referring to history but it's very different.



Sure, except right now I can start an argument about who the first LHW champion is just by alluding to the idea it's Choy not Root.



If you want to call it that. I mean a chronological list of champions is a chronological list of who actually won champion fights that actually happened. If that's lineal to you, sure.

Napoleon Bonaparte famously said that history was lies agreed upon.

I never considered the difference between a chronologist and a historian before. But thinking about it, the difference is that a chronologist simply records events, while a historian creates a narrative out of events.

The lineage of HW champions, in its pure, honest form, is exactly what you described there: A chronological list of who actually won championship fights that actually happened. Imposing a so called lineal title upon that list is where the lies come into the picture.

[Marchegiano]

Napoleon Bonaparte famously said that history was lies agreed upon.

I never considered the difference between a chronologist and a historian before. But thinking about it, the difference is that a chronologist simply records events, while a historian creates a narrative out of events.

The lineage of HW champions, in its pure, honest form, is exactly what you described there: A chronological list of who actually won championship fights that actually happened. Imposing a so called lineal title upon that list is where the lies come into the picture.

Napoleon's mostly right. There's always people digging up proof of something and that is more or less the only thing that breaks the Bonaparte proverb.

Pretty much, I don't have a problem logging a narrative. Before getting rando AI banned made it so difficult to keep up with I had narrative posts on most of the ancient champions linked to their names on the list but I didn't write those narratives. I just logged them. So even my approach to narrative lacks narrative

As to the last, maybe. Purest form, ideal, core, maybe, lineal is an idea and author's intent can only reach so far. That said, I don't like to call it the same as lineal. If I call it lineal and list chronology of champions I will get arguments every single place that list deviates from Ring, CBZ, Wiki, etc. because they all share the same and theirs is mostly just a copy/paste of Nat's or if they go deeper they copy/paste Tracy's(CBZ) BK guys ahead of Sully.

If I do the same thing and simply call it 'traditional' or 'historical' or some such similar nonsense folks don't compare it to the lists commonly passed around and seem to busy themselves learning something.

So really that division I made is for a clear message to an audience who thinks they know something they don't not so much because a chronicle of champions is or isn't a lineage of champions. I'm not sure I can answer that Ask a historian!

[kafkod]

Napoleon's mostly right. There's always people digging up proof of something and that is more or less the only thing that breaks the Bonaparte proverb.

Pretty much, I don't have a problem logging a narrative. Before getting rando AI banned made it so difficult to keep up with I had narrative posts on most of the ancient champions linked to their names on the list but I didn't write those narratives. I just logged them. So even my approach to narrative lacks narrative

As to the last, maybe. Purest form, ideal, core, maybe, lineal is an idea and author's intent can only reach so far. That said, I don't like to call it the same as lineal. If I call it lineal and list chronology of champions I will get arguments every single place that list deviates from Ring, CBZ, Wiki, etc. because they all share the same and theirs is mostly just a copy/paste of Nat's or if they go deeper they copy/paste Tracy's(CBZ) BK guys ahead of Sully.

If I do the same thing and simply call it 'traditional' or 'historical' or some such similar nonsense folks don't compare it to the lists commonly passed around and seem to busy themselves learning something.

So really that division I made is for a clear message to an audience who thinks they know something they don't not so much because a chronicle of champions is or isn't a lineage of champions. I'm not sure I can answer that Ask a historian!

Imo, when there is more than one recognised title belt holder in a division, then the idea of using man-who-beat-the-man lineages to objectively decide which title holder can authentically claim to be the real champion works. But only if we accept that there will be interruptions in the lineage. Or, to put it another way, there will be multiple lineages in each division. Each lineage would start with an undisputed champion, and end when the recognised lineal champion either retires or relinquishes or is stripped of all his recognised title belts.

Using that objective method, Shannon Briggs, Wlad and Fury would not be recognised as lineal champions. Michael Spinks reign would end when he was stripped of his IBF belt for refusing to fight a mando with Tony Tucker, and George Foreman's second reign would end when the IBF stripped him for refusing to rematch Axel Schulz.

There would be other differences to the recognised HW lineage, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

[Willie Pep 229]

Imo, when there is more than one recognised title belt holder in a division, then the idea of using man-who-beat-the-man lineages to objectively decide which title holder can authentically claim to be the real champion works. But only if we accept that there will be interruptions in the lineage. Or, to put it another way, there will be multiple lineages in each division. Each lineage would start with an undisputed champion, and end when the recognised lineal champion either retires or relinquishes or is stripped of all his recognised title belts.

Using that objective method, Shannon Briggs, Wlad and Fury would not be recognised as lineal champions. Michael Spinks reign would end when he was stripped of his IBF belt for refusing to fight a mando with Tony Tucker, and George Foreman's second reign would end when the IBF stripped him for refusing to rematch Axel Schulz.

There would be other differences to the recognised HW lineage, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

Funny how we can agree on your first paragraph and be so far apart on your second.

You would let the IBF decide who is the champion?

You realize that there was only one year between Spinks defenses. He didn't retire he just chose his own opponent who happened to be Mike Tyson.

[kafkod]

Funny how we can agree on your first paragraph and be so far apart on your second.

You would let the IBF decide who is the champion?

You realize that there was only one year between Spinks defenses. He didn't retire he just chose his own opponent who happened to be Mike Tyson.

He was stripped by the IBF for refusing to fight his mando with Tony Tucker and fought Gerry Cooney, not Mike Tyson, instead.

[Willie Pep 229]

He was stripped by the IBF for refusing to fight his mando with Tony Tucker and fought Gerry Cooney, not Mike Tyson, instead.

Yeah I know. Then he fought Mike Tyson after toying with retirement.

But you want to let the IBF decide who is worthy of a title shot and not us, the fans?

We wanted the Tyson-Spinks fight. We already saw Tucker stall his way to losing his belt to Tyson so why are you letting the IBF steal a fight from us solely because they got a contract deal with Tucker?

????? - you got offended when I suggested that you let the SB dictate the fight game to you.

Don't you think this is an obvious example?

Did anyone want Tyson-Tucker II, except maybe you I guess. Why? Because of IBF rules?

Tradition has it, that a Champion who wins (and especially if he wins a rematch) is allowed to pick his next fight. Usually a money grab or a payday with an old war horse.

The Cooney fight is the way the game has been fought since the beginning.

Dempsey gave his old friend Miske a shot.
Zivic held a 'New Jersey fest with Coc-krain.
Ali fought Patterson after Liston.

And the list goes on and on. The new champion gets a showcase fight for money.

You really have let these SBs cloud your head.

Respect the history, respect the game. Stop letting the gangsters decide.

[kafkod]

Yeah I know. Then he fought Mike Tyson after toying with retirement.

But you want to let the IBF decide who is worthy of a title shot and not us, the fans?

We wanted the Tyson-Spinks fight. We already saw Tucker stall his way to losing his belt to Tyson so why are you letting the IBF steal a fight from us solely because they got a contract deal with Tucker?


Did anyone want Tyson-Tucker II, except maybe you I guess. Why? Because of IBF rules?

There is this thing known as "time". It progresses in one direction only. We hadn't already seen Tucker lose to Tyson when Spinks decided to fight Cooney instead of Tucker, because Tucker hadn't yet fought Tyson at that point in time. So why TF are you talking about Tyson vs Tucker 2?

And please, stop with this nonsense about "the fans" deciding who fights who for world titles.

The fans vs the sanctioning bodies is a false dichotomy. As Marchegiano has pointed out several times in this lineal discussion .. the sanctioning bodies only exist because the sport and the fans needed them. Without the sanctioning bodies, the fans would have to rely on fighters and promoters telling them who to recognise as champions.

[Willie Pep 229]

There is this thing known as "time". It progresses in one direction only. We hadn't already seen Tucker lose to Tyson when Spinks decided to fight Cooney instead of Tucker, because Tucker hadn't yet fought Tyson at that point in time. So why TF are you talking about Tyson vs Tucker 2?

And please, stop with this nonsense about "the fans" deciding who fights who for world titles.

The fans vs the sanctioning bodies is a false dichotomy. As Marchegiano has pointed out several times in this lineal discussion .. the sanctioning bodies only exist because the sport and the fans needed them. Without the sanctioning bodies, the fans would have to rely on fighters and promoters telling them who to recognise as champions.

Ah! OK you are correct Tyson fought Tucker two months later.

Which makes me ask, How did Tucker become 'champion.' Did the IBF point at him and declare him champion?

[Willie Pep 229]

There is this thing known as "time". It progresses in one direction only. We hadn't already seen Tucker lose to Tyson when Spinks decided to fight Cooney instead of Tucker, because Tucker hadn't yet fought Tyson at that point in time. So why TF are you talking about Tyson vs Tucker 2?

And please, stop with this nonsense about "the fans" deciding who fights who for world titles.

The fans vs the sanctioning bodies is a false dichotomy. As Marchegiano has pointed out several times in this lineal discussion .. the sanctioning bodies only exist because the sport and the fans needed them. Without the sanctioning bodies, the fans would have to rely on fighters and promoters telling them who to recognise as champions.

You think that the NYSAC (1920) and the NBA (1931) came into existence because the fans wanted them?