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

[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.

[kafkod]

- - All smarter than U

Oooooh Queenie, you're such a clever boy!

[Willie Pep 229]

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.

Big Foot Photo; D&K Remarks: You have me confused with Willow The Wisp.

We only seem to disagree when you call the lineal title a "con" (or illusion).

While it has occasionally been abused in that manner it is unfair to evaluate something based on it being abused in a criminal manner.

That would be like me measuring the honestly of all sanctioning bodies based the the actions of Bob Lee (IBF).

Glad we could clear up the insult thing. If you look back you'll see.

[kafkod]

Big Foot Photo; D&K Remarks: You have me confused with Willow The Wisp.

We only seem to disagree when you call the lineal title a "con" (or illusion).

While it has occasionally been abused in that manner it is unfair to evaluate something based on it being abused in a criminal manner.

That would be like me measuring the honestly of all sanctioning bodies based the the actions of Bob Lee (IBF).

Glad we could clear up the insult thing. If you look back you'll see.

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

You can say that again!

Some comments and the posters names are not loading correctly in this thread. When you asked if a comment of mine was directed at you, I got you confused with the guy it was actually directed at. Apologies to you for that mistake.

Here's why I'm calling the lineal title a con and an illusion: The idea of the lineal title, and the start of the lineage itself, from John L Sullivan onwards, was created or invented by Ring Magazine back in the 1920s. So in it's original form, "the lineal" was a bona fide title, with a title belt, and a governing body - the Ring Magazine. I believe the Ring also had a set of rules which the champion had to adhere to in order to keep his title, but I'm not sure when those rules where introduced.

But the Ring lineal title was discontinued in the 1990s, because with 3 recognised sanctioning bodies all awarding their own versions of the world title, the Ring could no longer use their traditional man-who-beat-the-man method to objectively determine who the the real champion actually was. If the lineal champion cannot be objectively decided upon, then the idea of the lineal title is wide open to exploitation by promoters, networks and fighters themselves.

Imo, the only way that man-who-beat-the-man lineage can be used objectively in the 4 belt era is to accept that there are sometimes going to be breaks in the lineage, and that each section of the lineage must begin with an undisputed champion and end when the champion either loses or retires. After that, the lineage can only resume when another undisputed champion is crowned.

[Willie Pep 229]

You can say that again!

Some comments and the posters names are not loading correctly in this thread. When you asked if a comment of mine was directed at you, I got you confused with the guy it was actually directed at. Apologies to you for that mistake.

Here's why I'm calling the lineal title a con and an illusion: The idea of the lineal title, and the start of the lineage itself, from John L Sullivan onwards, was created or invented by Ring Magazine back in the 1920s. So in it's original form, "the lineal" was a bona fide title, with a title belt, and a governing body - the Ring Magazine. I believe the Ring also had a set of rules which the champion had to adhere to in order to keep his title, but I'm not sure when those rules where introduced.

But the Ring lineal title was discontinued in the 1990s, because with 3 recognised sanctioning bodies all awarding their own versions of the world title, the Ring could no longer use their traditional man-who-beat-the-man method to objectively determine who the the real champion actually was. If the lineal champion cannot be objectively decided upon, then the idea of the lineal title is wide open to exploitation by promoters, networks and fighters themselves.

Imo, the only way that man-who-beat-the-man lineage can be used objectively in the 4 belt era is to accept that there are sometimes going to be breaks in the lineage, and that each section of the lineage must begin with an undisputed champion and end when the champion either loses or retires. After that, the lineage can only resume when another undisputed champion is crowned.

I had asked if it was me because you mentioned 'retronym.' I think you may have also got us confused in content as well. I think, with four different posters replying to you all at once it seems easy to do.

But I hope we are OK - so I can go back to politely telling you you're wrong.

Do you think there is any champion today that fits the lineal title criteria? (Regardless if you recognize it or not.)

[kafkod]

I had asked if it was me because you mentioned 'retronym.' I think you may have also got us confused in content as well. I think, with four different posters replying to you all at once it seems easy to do.

But I hope we are OK - so I can go back to politely telling you you're wrong.

Do you think there is any champion today that fits the lineal title criteria? (Regardless if you recognize it or not.)

Usyk became undisputed champ and hasn't lost since, so I would have no problem with him being recognised as Lennox Lewis' successor in the lineage, even though Usyk himself has said that the lineal title was nothing but Tyson Fury's bull****, and means nothing to him.

Usyk was spot on there. Lineal championship status is just that - a status. Neither Usyk, nor Fury, nor Wlad, nor Lewis ever fought for any lineal title.

As for man-who-beat-the-man, I think that is still relevant, as long as the first "man" in the chain was an undisputed champ. The man who beat that man could still be recognised as the lineal champ, even if he never became an undisputed (4 belt) champion himself.

[Ben Bolt]

Here's why I'm calling the lineal title a con and an illusion

When I started following boxing in the mid-70s, the lineal title was no illusion. Everyone in the business referred to it (except for the WBC and WBA, that is. Who cared?)

the only way that man-who-beat-the-man lineage can be used objectively in the 4 belt era is to accept that there are sometimes going to be breaks in the lineage.

I just wish that today's boxing writers and commentators stopped calling every belt winner a "world champion". Most of them are merely alphabet champions, and that is what they should be called. If fighters are honest about wanting to be crème de la crème, put pressure on them to fight each other. Not until then should they be labeled world champions.

[kafkod]

When I started following boxing in the mid-70s, the lineal title was no illusion. Everyone in the business referred to it (except for the WBC and WBA, that is. Who cared?)



I just wish that today's boxing writers and commentators stopped calling every belt winner a "world champion". Most of them are merely alphabet champions, and that is what they should be called. If fighters are honest about wanting to be crème de la crème, put pressure on them to fight each other. Not until then should they be labeled world champions.

Form the 1920s to the 1990s, there was an actual lineal title. It was created and controlled by Ring Magazine, who awarded their championship belt to the lineal champ in every division, using man-who-beat-the-man lineages.

But Ring stopped awarding their title belts in the mid 90s, because with 3 recognised alphabet titles, and champions retiring or relinquishing one belt to fight for another, the lineages were too complicated to keep track of. They brought their title belt back in 2002, but the present version of the Ring title uses Ring's own ratings, rather than lineages, to decide who the true champion is,

[Willie Pep 229]

Form the 1920s to the 1990s, there was an actual lineal title. It was created and controlled by Ring Magazine, who awarded their championship belt to the lineal champ in every division, using man-who-beat-the-man lineages.

But Ring stopped awarding their title belts in the mid 90s, because with 3 recognised alphabet titles, and champions retiring or relinquishing one belt to fight for another, the lineages were too complicated to keep track of. They brought their title belt back in 2002, but the present version of the Ring title uses Ring's own ratings, rather than lineages, to decide who the true champion is,

OK! We are on the same page. That is a compromise I can live with.

So now it is time for you to get on the band wagon with us, and make boxing great again (MBGA).

Up the lineal title, the SBs can sod off.