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

[QueensburyRules]

Which is dumberer, a chimp, a baboon, or a guy who thinks that the world title belts on the line in a world title fight are just decorations?

- - All smarter than U

[JAB5239]

[QUOTE=Willow The Wisp;n32477939]

Lol. Some folks just beg you for a beating!


Maybe that young poster beleives in another world heavyweight championship lineage????? Being that there are so doggone many worlds out there.

His first champion?????

17483680472751223652028095527998.jpg

That's what I don't get about him. Anyone can call anyone a world champion. They do it now. But there is this world only we judge this on, so there can only be one per division. Following a direct lineage brings you to the champion, not some fairy tale org that charges for the right to wear their particular belt. I didn't realize this was rocket science to some fans because it seems like common sense to me.

[kafkod]

[QUOTE=JAB5239;n32476386]

I know what the D/K effect is and I haven't got my chronology wrong.

Ring Magazine didn't exist when Sullivan became world champ. It was first published in 1922 .... 2 years after Sullivan's death and nearly 40 years after his lineal championship reign began.[/QUOTE]

There you go, you said it. Good boy!!

I can't figure out what you are playing at in this thread. You have acknowledged that me and Marchegenio are correct in saying that lineal championship recoginition is given to a fighter retrospectively. You even called it a retrnym yourself. Next thing, you will be agreeing with Jab's nonsense and mocking me for saying exactly the same thing as you.

John L Sullivan wasn't recognised as the first lineal HW champion till 6 years after he was dead and buried.

Yes, his name is first on the lineal list, but that list didn't exist during his lifetime.

[kafkod]

That's what I don't get about him. Anyone can call anyone a world champion. They do it now. But there is this world only we judge this on, so there can only be one per division. Following a direct lineage brings you to the champion, not some fairy tale org that charges for the right to wear their particular belt. I didn't realize this was rocket science to some fans because it seems like common sense to me.

Yes, anyone can call anyone a world champion, even if they are dead.

Nat Fleischer proved that by calling John L Sullivan the first lineal world HW champion 6 years after Sullivan's death.

[Willie Pep 229]

Kafkod!

Was your post directed to me?

If so that's not what retronym means.

But I do agree that often, not always, the lineal title comes after a fight has been decided or a championship stabilized.

I just finished posting on a different thread that after Carlos Monzon retired the MW Title went from Valdez to Corro to Antuofermo to Minter to Hagler. While that is a perfect linear event, I only see the the lineal MW Title as being Benvenuti to Monzon to Hagler.

So how's that for a screwed up position to take?

Just beating the man who beat the man (linear) isn't enough. It has to be the right man at the right time.

I don'tI feel I made fun of you, if so, sorry.

[Willie Pep 229]

OK this is all screwed up. My reply above is directed towards Kafkod not Jab5239.

[kafkod]

Kafkod!

Was your post directed to me?

If so that's not what retronym means.

But I do agree that often, not always, the lineal title comes after a fight has been decided or a championship stabilized.

I just finished posting on a different thread that after Carlos Monzon retired the MW Title went from Valdez to Corro to Antuofermo to Minter to Hagler. While that is a perfect linear event, I only see the the lineal MW Title as being Benvenuti to Monzon to Hagler.

So how's that for a screwed up position to take?

Just beating the man who beat the man (linear) isn't enough. It has to be the right man at the right time.

I don'tI feel I made fun of you, if so, sorry.

Yes, my post was directed at you!,

A retronym is a new word, or an addition to an existing word, which is created to change the meaning of the original word, to reflect some kind of change in circumstances.

Eg, after electric guitars were invented, none-electric guitars became known as "acoustic guitars", instead of just, "guitars"

After mobile phones were invented, phones that were connected to cables became known as "landlines" instead of just, "phones"

The only way it makes sense to say that "lineal world champion" is a retronym is if you are acknowledging that world champions existed before the idea of "the lineal world champion" was invented.

[Willie Pep 229]

Yes, my post was directed at you!,

A retronym is a new word, or an addition to an existing word, which is created to change the meaning of the original word, to reflect some kind of change in circumstances.

Eg, after electric guitars were invented, none-electric guitars became known as "acoustic guitars", instead of just, "guitars"

After mobile phones were invented, phones that were connected to cables became known as "landlines" instead of just, "phones"

The only way it makes sense to say that "lineal world champion" is a retronym is if you are acknowledging that world champions existed before the idea of "the lineal world champion" was invented.

I agree with that. It often, but not always, occurs that way. As I stated with Benvenuti to Monzon to Hagler. I left out the linear Valdez-Corro-Antuofermo-Minter, as I don't see them as lineal champions. Oxymoronic logic? Certainly but it's a way to clear the field and find a real champion.

Then on the other hand there are times were lineal counts before the fight as well, e.g. Spinks-Tyson.

Why do you say I made fun of you?

Yes that is a retronym. So what I mean by lineal being a retronym, is that the term had to be coined only after the sanctioning bodies began to dominate. We didn't need it before then.

So of course the term was never applied to John L. Sullivan. Saying lineal would have seemed redundant to him. It would be like saying to John L. "that's an acoustic guitar." He would look at you kind of funny and say, "yeah, and the the road is made of dirt, why do you keep pointing it out to me."

No John L. never heard the word lineal. But he was the thing we now call lineal.

[QueensburyRules]

I agree with that. It often, but not always, occurs that way. As I stated with Benvenuti to Monzon to Hagler. I left out the linear Valdez-Corro-Antuofermo-Minter, as I don't see them as lineal champions. Oxymoronic logic? Certainly but it's a way to clear the field and find a real champion.

Then on the other hand there are times were lineal counts before the fight as well, e.g. Spinks-Tyson.

Why do you say I made fun of you?

Yes that is a retronym. So what I mean by lineal being a retronym, is that the term had to be coined only after the sanctioning bodies began to dominate. We didn't need it before then.

So of course the term was never applied to John L. Sullivan. Saying lineal would have seemed redundant to him. It would be like saying to John L. "that's an acoustic guitar." He would look at you kind of funny and say, "yeah, and the the road is made of dirt, why do you keep pointing it out to me."

No John L. never heard the word lineal. But he was the thing we now call lineal.

- - Boxing in it's modern march up the sporting ladder never had to deal with internet boxing idiots, but John L certainly put it on the public professional map and was instrumental in advancing public interest that is currently waning in modern boxing because of the inherent dishonesty of the ABCs and commishes.

[kafkod]

I agree with that. It often, but not always, occurs that way. As I stated with Benvenuti to Monzon to Hagler. I left out the linear Valdez-Corro-Antuofermo-Minter, as I don't see them as lineal champions. Oxymoronic logic? Certainly but it's a way to clear the field and find a real champion.

Then on the other hand there are times were lineal counts before the fight as well, e.g. Spinks-Tyson.

Why do you say I made fun of you?

Yes that is a retronym. So what I mean by lineal being a retronym, is that the term had to be coined only after the sanctioning bodies began to dominate. We didn't need it before then.

So of course the term was never applied to John L. Sullivan. Saying lineal would have seemed redundant to him. It would be like saying to John L. "that's an acoustic guitar." He would look at you kind of funny and say, "yeah, and the the road is made of dirt, why do you keep pointing it out to me."

No John L. never heard the word lineal. But he was the thing we now call lineal.

Ok, we agree 100% on what a "lineal champion" actually is. So I'm even more confused as to why you were criticising and mocking me for disagreeing with Bill and Jab who both misunderstand it completely.

Bill thinks the lineal HW title exists and is older than the sport itself.

Jab has been saying stupid things like ... "John L Sullivan didn't need Ring Magazine recognition to become the first lineal champion"... when you and I both know that John L only became the 1st lineal champ because the Ring recognised him retrospectively, after his death. And, according to Marchegiano, there were other fighters, like Jem Mace, who probably deserved that recognition more than Sullivan.

I also disagree with the notion that the lineal title is the answer to the problem of having more than one world title holder in a division. How is adding yet another title to the mix supposed to solve that problem? Especially if the alternative title can only be won and lost in the ring, which means that the guy who holds it is under no obligation to defend it against the best available challengers. We've seen what that can lead to .. Tyson Fury, Top Rank and Queensberry selling bum fights against no-hopers like Sefer Seferi and Tom Schwarz as as lineal world HW title fights.

Why diid I say you were mocking me? Well, you said my chronology was wrong and posted a definition of Dunning/Kruger syndrome for me to read, along with an image of Bigfoot, asking if that was my idea of the 1st lineal champ.