Why is Tunney a great heavyweight?

[HOUDINI563]

Loved watching Wilt play basketball. Only a complete fool believes he beats any top fighter in a boxing ring.

[QueensburyRules]

Loved watching Wilt play basketball. Only a complete fool believes he beats any top fighter in a boxing ring.

- -He and Cus weren't training for any top fighter.

Git U minder to purée your steak and insist he serve it hot. Wilt physically clowned Ali just like he did Jim Brown.

Recorded history!

[HOUDINI563]

Ali made a joke of Wilt on nationwide TV. Everyone except the most casual of fans knew the first solid blow Ali would land ends the fight.

[Willie Pep 229]

[Marchegiano]

Not sure where your question is going . . .

Lineal champions are a denoted succession based on the results of prize fights; there is no evaluation in recognizing them, nor does it suggest that we should compare them against one another as a measure of greatness.

Really not sure what you are asking.

That's a nice idea, but no one during the era before bodies was ever called lineal were they?

So just the labeling itself is an example of modern eyes labeling history is modern labels. Which is all I've called for.

Beyond that Lineal isn't even what it's claimed to be. The list of champions is more the list of champions historians recognize than the list of champions who won titles in championship matches.

Peter Maher is not a champion

Fitzsimmons is not a x2 champion.

Our label doesn't even fit the narrative.

And even farther, there is no consistency in lineal, and there is made up modern rules everyone seems to follow. What's a really cute one is ranking and retirements. Never before sanctioning bodies could a lineal be stripped, but they're now. Never before sanctioning bodies could a lineal be crowned based off fighting any rank fighter because there was no ranks.

So Lineal is a modern label for traditional ideas that doesn't even reflect those traditions when it's inconvenient and rather than making the label fit the history, when history challenges the label, it's history that gets changed.




I'm not even saying we need a narrative change. I'm saying we compare fighters based on who they fought and when but give the colorline guys a free pass under the guise "not their fault their times was racist" while conversely refusing to acknowledge what is historically true and accurate solely to preserve what our fathers wrote in their history books.

I'm not a black man, but, I'd understand...if I was I might suggest racism, modern racism. If the goal is historical accuracy. IE, if I am not to hang every single colorline era champion for not fighting the best around because their era dictated then why the **** do I not see Maher, Fitzsimmons's first, and Sharkey as champions as per their era's historical accuracy?


So what is lineal? A modern label for old traditions that leaves history out because it is an inconvenient story to tell and makes chronological lists difficult. And what did our 70s papas do? Just fixed the history so it fits the list.


It is pretentious, it is modern eyes labeling history as it sees fit, we do that all the time.




For Dempsey, it's not like I dislike the guy. If the black HWs right now boycotted boxing in some sort of cultural change protest thing then I'd say TF is king of one of the weakest eras we've ever seen. May not be Fury's fault at all, but, it doesn't make it not true and pretending like it isn't is just misrepresentation.

A modern Fury without Wilder, Joshua, Whyte, Chisora, Hunter, Bryan, Dubois, Joyce, Martin, and sooo many more can still put together a nice resume of who's left but that is what it is. Who is left.

That's not Joe Louis level dominance. I'm not saying Jack was scared, I'm not saying Jack was bad at boxing. I'm saying he could be ****ing boxing Jesus, he still did not reign over the sport and others did.

[Willie Pep 229]

That's a nice idea, but no one during the era before bodies was ever called lineal were they?

So just the labeling itself is an example of modern eyes labeling history is modern labels. Which is all I've called for.

Beyond that Lineal isn't even what it's claimed to be. The list of champions is more the list of champions historians recognize than the list of champions who won titles in championship matches.

Peter Maher is not a champion

Fitzsimmons is not a x2 champion.

Our label doesn't even fit the narrative.

And even farther, there is no consistency in lineal, and there is made up modern rules everyone seems to follow. What's a really cute one is ranking and retirements. Never before sanctioning bodies could a lineal be stripped, but they're now. Never before sanctioning bodies could a lineal be crowned based off fighting any rank fighter because there was no ranks.

So Lineal is a modern label for traditional ideas that doesn't even reflect those traditions when it's inconvenient and rather than making the label fit the history, when history challenges the label, it's history that gets changed.




I'm not even saying we need a narrative change. I'm saying we compare fighters based on who they fought and when but give the colorline guys a free pass under the guise "not their fault their times was racist" while conversely refusing to acknowledge what is historically true and accurate solely to preserve what our fathers wrote in their history books.

I'm not a black man, but, I'd understand...if I was I might suggest racism, modern racism. If the goal is historical accuracy. IE, if I am not to hang every single colorline era champion for not fighting the best around because their era dictated then why the **** do I not see Maher, Fitzsimmons's first, and Sharkey as champions as per their era's historical accuracy?


So what is lineal? A modern label for old traditions that leaves history out because it is an inconvenient story to tell and makes chronological lists difficult. And what did our 70s papas do? Just fixed the history so it fits the list.


It is pretentious, it is modern eyes labeling history as it sees fit, we do that all the time.




For Dempsey, it's not like I dislike the guy. If the black HWs right now boycotted boxing in some sort of cultural change protest thing then I'd say TF is king of one of the weakest eras we've ever seen. May not be Fury's fault at all, but, it doesn't make it not true and pretending like it isn't is just misrepresentation.

A modern Fury without Wilder, Joshua, Whyte, Chisora, Hunter, Bryan, Dubois, Joyce, Martin, and sooo many more can still put together a nice resume of who's left but that is what it is. Who is left.

That's not Joe Louis level dominance. I'm not saying Jack was scared, I'm not saying Jack was bad at boxing. I'm saying he could be ****ing boxing Jesus, he still did not reign over the sport and others did.

I read your reply.

You are arguing semantics. Just because we named it "lineal" after the bodies came into existence, isn't the same thing as evaluating "a man outside his time" -- Not close, I don't see any connection between the two points.

Yea we do IT ALL THE TIME, even me!

But that doesn't change the rule. The rule still applies. That's why we never see any historical works, that make those kinds of judgments, ever being published, they only get posted on the Internet.

Na, sorry what you're doing with Dempsey is fun and popular on the Internet, but it still wrong historically speaking.

P.S. In a way I guess it is the same foul that is playing out with this current wave of calling 'founding fathers' racists. You are correct, we do it all the time!

[Marchegiano]

I read your reply.

You are arguing semantics. Just because we named it "lineal" after the bodies came into existence, isn't the same thing as evaluating "a man outside his time" -- Not close, I don't see any connection between the two points.

Yea we do IT ALL THE TIME, even me!

But that doesn't change the rule. The rule still applies. That's why we never see any historical works, that make those kinds of judgments, ever being published, they only get posted on the Internet.

Na, sorry what you're doing with Dempsey is fun and popular on the Internet, but it still wrong historically speaking.

P.S. In a way I guess it is the same foul that is playing out with this current wave of calling 'founding fathers' racists. You are correct, we do it all the time!

That's literally what I am saying has happened to lineal.

It's rules are inconsistent with the history. It is a lie. Maher won the title. That **** happened. In his era he was called champion. When he fought Fitzs it was billed as a title fight. Where is your lineal without its rules being changed?

[Willie Pep 229]

That's literally what I am saying has happened to lineal.

It's rules are inconsistent with the history. It is a lie. Maher won the title. That **** happened. In his era he was called champion. When he fought Fitzs it was billed as a title fight. Where is your lineal without its rules being changed?

"Lineal" is a retronym, a diction tool used to make our contemporary conversations flow.

An evaluation (even when applying the word lineal,) of the Corbett-Maher-Fitzsimmons situation doesn't break the "out of their time rule" -- it is good history.

Because we use the new word "lineal" doesn't pollute our evaluation, but if we try to apply today's standards and values to that discussion, we do.

In '26 Dempsey put 126,000 paying asses in Sesquicentennial Stadium. What must a man accomplish to be called 'great'?

Compare him to Muhammad Ali? No, that's not how we should evaluate a fighter's greatness.

[HOUDINI563]

The issue with Historians not including Maher as a worlds heavyweight champion is quite simple.

Corbett announced he was bestowing his championship upon Maher. Maher did not earn that title. Thus the resulting Fitzsimmons- Maher bout in 1896 was not for the championship. No historian claims Maher was heavyweight champion because you cannot put together any logic historically that he was.

Fast forward to 1905 Jeffries announced the winner of Root-Hart would be the new champion. Over the years historians here and there felt, once again, that no champion had the right to bestow a championship in this manner. Over time however it was determined that a logical case could be made that Hart (due to his win over Johnson) and Root (due to his wins over Gardner and Flynn) were the logical top 2 contenders at that time. Thus most allow this fight as for the heavyweight championship. NOT because Jeffries called it as such but because it was historically accurate to do so.

[Marchegiano]

"Lineal" is a retronym, a diction tool used to make our contemporary conversations flow.

An evaluation (even when applying the word lineal,) of the Corbett-Maher-Fitzsimmons situation doesn't break the "out of their time rule" -- it is good history.

Because we use the new word "lineal" doesn't pollute our evaluation, but if we try to apply today's standards and values to that discussion, we do.

In '26 Dempsey put 126,000 paying asses in Sesquicentennial Stadium. What must a man accomplish to be called 'great'?

Compare him to Muhammad Ali? No, that's not how we should evaluate a fighter's greatness.

I'm not following. How is disregarding Maher's championship run not applying modern standards to a history that did not have them?

If it was October 1895 and I asked who is the HW champion you would respond why Peter Maher of course.

if you look up who was champion in October of 1895 you're going to get Jim Corbett...even though he's off acting at the time.

I don't see how it isn't the application of modern standards that excludes Maher title reign from historical recognition.