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

[billeau2]

Y'all piling on Kaf claiming some level of knowledge will ever change perspective. He is right in asserting it is an idea. It is not a complicated idea, and it is flawed.


Some of this is pretty ridiculous and I'm half minded to take up Kaf's case just to clear out more than half this pile. If you want to make it about history, let's be clear, most of you are unfit and this would condense to me and Willow with loud mouths like Bronny or Queen taking pop shots here and there, provided Willow had the motivation.


That's just the damn truth. If I take up where Kaf is going most of you will stfu and walk.


So maybe don't throw stones from your glass houses? Dismissing a fair perspective because it disagrees with you is nothing short of closemindedness.



The racism of lineal is more than a qualifier as to why boxing fans may reject lineal

The paths by the bodies are more than enough qualifier for a boxing fan to acknowledge bodies.


Don't act like knowledge and history will change this juxtaposition, It won't. Ever.



I am not Greek

I am not Italian

I am not English

I am not African

I am not even the same kind of American aggrandized by your lineal or the 3k years of boxing history I cover.


My respect for the culture that is not my own should be beyond reproach, I know more than most nationals of those descents. However there is a limit.

Never hid the fact I am latino.

You are asking me to bow down and pledge to your racist history some level of respect I do not think I should have to qualify why I oppose.



I recognize your recognition but if forcing you to recognize your racist title as racist is so traumatic for youse then you deserve a little perspective smacking. You are upholding racist beliefs and respects for what you veil as boxing history why crying at me for changing no facts and retelling the story from a perspective less kind to classist, nationalists, and racists.


You should respect that stance at least as much as I respect the fact that you respect a **** like Tunney,

What hand brought us to global boxing? Was it lineal? Was it body?


You want me to respect your history while you show mine none.


Kaf should be applauded not belittled. There should be intellectual honesty here. Provided no FACTS are altered to fit an agenda there should be no disrespect in variant opinions from variant backgrounds.

Kaf has crossed the street and sees it is good here. I have crossed the street and seen it is glorious there. You lot have yet to.






If you're a lineal mark who can't say ANYTHING positive about bodies, there's yer ****ing sign jamook

If you are a body mark who can find NOTHING to respect in lineal, there's your ****ing sign you jamook.



****ing tiny bit of middle ground every now and then huh?






Lastly, IT SHOULD NOT BE ME CALLING FOR RATIONALISM AND A LACK OF EMOTION!!!!!! FFS you lot have changed. Like a lot. You can't even really call me the loud or mean one anymore. Everyone's loud, everyone's mean, everyone's a ****ing kunt who, all of a sudden, like in the past five years, can't even ****ing understand a perspective that isn't a circlejerk.


You did just read MARCHEGIANO call for RATIONALISM ... FFS... there's yer ****ing sign.

Flawed? You bet.... ARE you asserting it does not exist? Please clarify...

[Biledriver]

Listen, Beta-Boi: If you're going to try to insult me, at least get your basic sh it straight. I'm not a flying monkey, I'm the green bi tch who sends the flying monkeys

And that's MS Bi tch to you

Remind Them.jpg

[JAB5239]

History tells us that the lineal title was invented by Nat Fleischer at Ring Magazine and awarded to champions based on the results of sanctioned world title fights.

History also tells us that it was discontinued by the Ring back in the 1990s because it was no longer viable in the 3 belt era. Since then, the idea of the lineal title has been just that ... an idea, and nothing more. And here's the critical thing to remember about ideas ... they exist only in the minds of human beings, and are therefor subjective and open to disagreement from people who hold other, opposing ideas, in their own minds.

History does not tell us the lineal title was invented by Fleischer. By saying this you can surely provide evidence, right? History tells us the lineal title started with John L. Sullivan and continues right up to Usyk today. This is easily proven by a succession of champions.

You claim The Ring got rid of Lineal in the 90's because it was not longer viable. Two questions. First, can you show evidence of this? And two, if that were true than why bring it back in an era with even more orgs and titles? Your assumptions make no sense.

[Willie Pep 229]

History does not tell us the lineal title was invented by Fleischer. By saying this you can surely provide evidence, right? History tells us the lineal title started with John L. Sullivan and continues right up to Usyk today. This is easily proven by a succession of champions.

You claim The Ring got rid of Lineal in the 90's because it was not longer viable. Two questions. First, can you show evidence of this? And two, if that were true than why bring it back in an era with even more orgs and titles? Your assumptions make no sense.

During the 1980s-1990s The Ring Magazine went through several failing ranking protocols.

All failures.

1980s

They tried to return to the original eight weight classes. That collasped fast.

They tried to identify only lineal or undisputed title holders for all 16 divisions (I think it was 16 at the time). That failed. Too many empty slots.

(The Bowe Years)

They went through a phase where they had no champions identified and you were left to decide to recognize the #1 fighter (contender) as champion, if you liked.

The 2000s

They went back to ranking/Identifying champions, but now it seems they act like any other sanctioning body. Acting on their own self-precieved expertise. Not much more credlibility than the SBs.

P.S. I wouldn't base any argument, either way, on what The Ring was doing during those decades.

[Bronson66]

During the 1980s-1990s The Ring Magazine went through several failing ranking protocols.

All failures.

1980s

They tried to return to the original eight weight classes. That collasped fast.

They tried to identify only lineal or undisputed title holders for all 16 divisions (I think it was 16 at the time). That failed. Too many empty slots.

(The Bowe Years)

They went through a phase where they had no champions identified and you were left to decide to recognize the #1 fighter (contender) as champion, if you liked.

The 2000s

They went back to ranking/Identifying champions, but now it seems they act like any other sanctioning body. Acting on their own self-precieved expertise. Not much more credlibility than the SBs.

P.S. I wouldn't base any argument, either way, on what The Ring was doing during those decades.

All true.

[kafkod]

Goodness Gracious, Great balls of fire! Pretty philosophical there newbie.

All human knowledge exists only in the minds of human beings. Popes, Kings, Presidents, Baseball World Series winners...yaaa.

Are you pretty sure that the lineal heavyweight title was invented by Nat Fleischer at Ring Magazine?
Somebody should have told this to John L.

Yes, I'm interested in philosophy, so I'm aware that there is a difference between knowledge and belief.

I know that at this moment in time the lineal heavyweight title exists only as an idea.

"Are you pretty sure that the lineal heavyweight title was invented by Nat Fleischer at Ring Magazine?
Somebody should have told this to John L"

Yes, I believe that Ring Magazine came up with the idea of lineal titles and that for quite a few years, they awarded them to fighters based on man-who-beat-the-man lineage. According to Marchegiano, it was Nat Fleischer himself who came up with the idea. I know that Nat was the owner and editor of Ring at that time, and March knows his boxing history, so I'm taking his word on that.

I'm also pretty sure that John L himself was awarded his "lineal title" retrospectively and would have had no idea what the term even meant when he first became champion.

[kafkod]

Listen, Beta-Boi: If you're going to try to insult me, at least get your basic sh it straight. I'm not a flying monkey, I'm the green bi tch who sends the flying monkeys

This is the internet, you can be whatever you want here. Like a green witch, without owning a broomstick or a pointy hat. Or being green.

Or a boxing expert, without knowing shit about boxing.

[kafkod]

And that's MS Bi tch to you

Remind Them.jpg

Please state your preferred pronouns, then I'll know what I'm dealing with.

[kafkod]

History does not tell us the lineal title was invented by Fleischer. By saying this you can surely provide evidence, right? History tells us the lineal title started with John L. Sullivan and continues right up to Usyk today. This is easily proven by a succession of champions.

You claim The Ring got rid of Lineal in the 90's because it was not longer viable. Two questions. First, can you show evidence of this? And two, if that were true than why bring it back in an era with even more orgs and titles? Your assumptions make no sense.

You do understand that the lineal history you're talking about was compiled after John L Sullivan's title reign - and probably his actual life - was over, yeah?

[Willie Pep 229]

Yes, I'm interested in philosophy, so I'm aware that there is a difference between knowledge and belief.

I know that at this moment in time the lineal heavyweight title exists only as an idea.

"Are you pretty sure that the lineal heavyweight title was invented by Nat Fleischer at Ring Magazine?
Somebody should have told this to John L"

Yes, I believe that Ring Magazine came up with the idea of lineal titles and that for quite a few years, they awarded them to fighters based on man-who-beat-the-man lineage. According to Marchegiano, it was Nat Fleischer himself who came up with the idea. I know that Nat was the owner and editor of Ring at that time, and March knows his boxing history, so I'm taking his word on that.

I'm also pretty sure that John L himself was awarded his "lineal title" retrospectively and would have had no idea what the term even meant when he first became champion.

And why might have Fleischer created such a title, you ask?

Because the SBs (NBA/NYSAC) were already starting to identify different competing champions and were threating to strip title holders who dare challenged them.

'Who beat the man who beat the man' was already the standard without Fleischer assistance.

But right from the get go the problem with that simple logic was challenged by the greedy, agenda ridden sanctioning bodies.

Once again the term lineal is a retronym forced into creation by corruption sanctioning bodies. So when ot was created is irrelevant. Why it was created is the issue.

It existed long before the term was coined. It never before needed a word to describe itself until the corrupt sanctioning bodies started playing their games.