The Greatness of Joe Frazier and an example of when the lineal was needed and came to the rescue of boxing

[billeau2]

You are misunderstanding the situation again. Nobody questioned Joe Frazier's right to call himself the undisputed world champion. The question everybody wanted answering was ... is Frazier better than Ali? They were universally recognised as the 2 best HWs in the world. Boxing fans wanted to know which of them was Number One.

Yeah and? How does that contradict anything? That is what the lineal is for. You are so hung up on a semantic argument... I mean with good will here, it is making you look very silly. To you the lineal only has authority if it is magically uttered as a PRELUDE to what it accomplishes. Really?

So if you are buying an ice cream cone, you get the cone and do not pay the guy because he has not said, "I will be expecting money for this ice cream?" It has to be made explicit to be real?

[billeau2]

Yeah he did.

That's why HBO created the term "Undisputed" Heavyweight Champion.

It's one of those paradoxical language things. If he had actually been undisputed he would have been referred to as the Heavyweight Champion without the ahjectival modifier.

"Undisputed" as a term was beat into the American lexicon by HBO who, through Tyson and King, had a monopoly over the HW Championship and an advantage over Showtime. (They were the CBS and NBC of their era.)

But HBO didn't have Spinks and Butch Lewis so they couldn't force that fight.

Not wanting to upset the purest they went with "Undisputed." This recognized all the sanctioning bodies that bowed to their domination of the game and left Spinks for the purist like me to support.

[EDIT] Whom did The Ring Magazine recognized during this period? I don't know.

Once Tyson beat Spinks he became the HW Champion and HBO didn't need to push the 'undisputed' moniker any longer.

From reading some of the other posts it looks "undisputed" has run its course. Now, it seems, that "four belt title" is the new moniker of excellence. I haven't heard 'undisputed' used much lately.

The problem is how kafkod and others can be led by the nose when a semantic argument for the primacy of a specific term is deemed necessary to create something that is otherwise real all along. The ancient Mesopotamians believed in the true Logos: language was thought to be magical and able to manifest from a mere utterance. In our society? while this still exists as an occult property of words, it is also typical to create new terms to manipulate. naturally this means that the lineal being stated would depend on the motives of the one stating.

[kafkod]

Yeah he did.

That's why HBO created the term "Undisputed" Heavyweight Champion.

It's one of those paradoxical language things. If he had actually been undisputed he would have been referred to as the Heavyweight Champion without the ahjectival modifier.

"Undisputed" as a term was beat into the American lexicon by HBO who, through Tyson and King, had a monopoly over the HW Championship and an advantage over Showtime. (They were the CBS and NBC of their era.)

But HBO didn't have Spinks and Butch Lewis so they couldn't force that fight.

Not wanting to upset the purest they went with "Undisputed." This recognized all the sanctioning bodies that bowed to their domination of the game and left Spinks for the purist like me to support.

[EDIT] Whom did The Ring Magazine recognized during this period? I don't know.

Once Tyson beat Spinks he became the HW Champion and HBO didn't need to push the 'undisputed' moniker any longer.

From reading some of the other posts it looks "undisputed" has run its course. Now, it seems, that "four belt title" is the new moniker of excellence. I haven't heard 'undisputed' used much lately.

Everybody knew Spinks didn't stand a cat in hell's chance of beating Tyson. HBO were selling the fight by hyping it up to be more important and significant than it actually was. Queensberry and Top Rank played the same game by selling Tyson Fury's comeback fights against no-hopers like Seferi, Schwarz and Wallin as lineal title defences. Then PBC joined the rip-off party by selling Fury vs Wilder as a WBC and lineal title unification fight. The imaginary lineal title is a great way for promoters, networks, etc, to rip of gullible fans.

[JAB5239]

Everybody knew Spinks didn't stand a cat in hell's chance of beating Tyson. HBO were selling the fight by hyping it up to be more important and significant than it actually was. Queensberry and Top Rank played the same game by selling Tyson Fury's comeback fights against no-hopers like Seferi, Schwarz and Wallin as lineal title defences. Then PBC joined the rip-off party by selling Fury vs Wilder as a WBC and lineal title unification fight. The imaginary lineal title is a great way for promoters, networks, etc, to rip of gullible fans.

Yet the lineal title isn't charging a sanctioning fee. Hmmm, who's really ripping off who?

By the way, who is the lightheavyweight champion of the world right now? Is it lineal champ Bivol for beating the best? Or is it Benavidez who was handed an ABC trinket without even having to fight for it?

[kafkod]

Back in 1971 the fact that we didn't use the term 'lineal' at the time is a non-argument. We didn't need the term back then, it was a given.

The people knew who the champion was without the label.

The rise of the sanctioning bodies in the 1980s forced the creation of the retronym "lineal."

We didn't use it in the 1960s and 1970s because we didn't need it. The 'lineal' was the only title we actually recognized so the label wasn't necessary. You fail to recognize that it is a retronym.

So 99.99% of the people didn't know the term but 99.9% of them understood its dynamics. I.e. knew who the champion was.

Of course I recognise that. And I have been trying to get you to recognise the implications of what that means. There was never any such thing as a lineal title, as such, that could be fought for as a stand-alone entity. Rather, lineal championship status was earned retrospectively, as a result of winning a fight for one or more of the recognised title belts.

[kafkod]

Yet the lineal title isn't charging a sanctioning fee. Hmmm, who's really ripping off who?

By the way, who is the lightheavyweight champion of the world right now? Is it lineal champ Bivol for beating the best? Or is it Benavidez who was handed an ABC trinket without even having to fight for it?

Damn .. nobody is paying sanctioning fees to fight for a title that doesn't exist. How amazing is that?

Bivol became the undisputed champion by winning all 4 recognised title belts, plus the Ring title, and nobody has beaten him since. That's why he is The Man at LHW. If you want to call him the lineal champion, I have no argument with that. But he does not hold a lineal title. There is no such thing as a lineal title.

[billeau2]

Everybody knew Spinks didn't stand a cat in hell's chance of beating Tyson. HBO were selling the fight by hyping it up to be more important and significant than it actually was. Queensberry and Top Rank played the same game by selling Tyson Fury's comeback fights against no-hopers like Seferi, Schwarz and Wallin as lineal title defences. Then PBC joined the rip-off party by selling Fury vs Wilder as a WBC and lineal title unification fight. The imaginary lineal title is a great way for promoters, networks, etc, to rip of gullible fans.

So? What is the point? What does any of that have to do with the lineal? In your little mind if I hand you a cherry lollipop and insist it is G****, that means there is something wrong with some lollipop[s being cherry. Anyone can call anything what they want. Any concept or idea can be changed to suit other interests...

Example: "Ground Zero" is a term that has been coopted entirely. Do you know what it actually means? I give you a 50/50 assuming you do not look it up. But does the way the term is used now detract from what it truly signifies? NO!!!!!!

[billeau2]

Of course I recognise that. And I have been trying to get you to recognise the implications of what that means. There was never any such thing as a lineal title, as such, that could be fought for as a stand-alone entity. Rather, lineal championship status was earned retrospectively, as a result of winning a fight for one or more of the recognised title belts.

Wrong. It simply has no relation. Hereis the flaw in your logic BTW, if what you said was true then it would apply in both directions. The belts would become undisputed and called the lineal, but... the lineal cannot become one of many alphabet belts. Therefore they are obviously distinct ent iti es.

[billeau2]

Damn .. nobody is paying sanctioning fees to fight for a title that doesn't exist. How amazing is that?

Bivol became the undisputed champion by winning all 4 recognised title belts, plus the Ring title, and nobody has beaten him since. That's why he is The Man at LHW. If you want to call him the lineal champion, I have no argument with that. But he does not hold a lineal title. There is no such thing as a lineal title.

Wrong again... Sanctioning fees have nothing to do with the lineal, the point was, and is, they show a special interest beholdent to that interest. Can you try to think logically and not just try to characterize the lineal based on the alphabet belts? They are different! Entirely different aspects of status in boxing.

[Willie Pep 229]

Of course I recognise that. And I have been trying to get you to recognise the implications of what that means. There was never any such thing as a lineal title, as such, that could be fought for as a stand-alone entity. Rather, lineal championship status was earned retrospectively, as a result of winning a fight for one or more of the recognised title belts.

You're saying there has to be recognizable organizations in support, before a lineal title can be decided?

It the "lineal title" exisited before sanctioning bodies got involved it just wasn't called such.