Real champions defend their titles

[Marchegiano]

Lineal champions with one or more title defenses, Lineal + Undisputed in eras that apply:

1. Corbett
2. Jeffries
3. Burns
4. Johnson
5. Willard
6. Dempsey
7. Tunney
8. Schmeling
9. Carnera
10. Louis
11. Charles
12. Walcott
13. Marciano
14. Patterson
15. Liston
16. Ali
17. Frazier
18. Foreman
19. Tyson
20. Holyfield

I don't actually feel strongly about that sentiment, but, I figured it'd be interesting to know who the lineal (TBRB/CBZ recognized) champions who actually defended their titles are and ditto for the undisputeds.

I did expect it to be longer. There are only 20 actually in the gloved history of the division, and, that's only if you do not see the colored and such titles has true or equal titles.

If you go just one step farther and make the game 2 defenses or more:

1. Jeffries
2. Burns
3. Johnson
4. Dempsey
5. Tunney
6. Carnera
7. Louis
8. Charles
9. Marciano
10. Patterson
11. Frazier
12. Foreman
13. Ali
14. Tyson
15. Holyfield

Only 15 champions to ever be lineal and undisputed and defend that claim twice or more.


Let's jump to five:

1. Jeffries
2. Burns
3. Johnson
4. Louis
5. Marciano
6. Patterson
7. Ali
8. Tyson

Damn small list, let's make it smaller, 10 or more:

1. Burns
2. Louis
3. Ali

The takeaway? Clearly Tommy Burns is underrated. He's kinda like an early Rocky actually; undersized but still hits hard. He had better feet, well, for his day he could move so I imagine if he was in the 50s he'd move better than Rocco. Anyway, Tommy Burns has just a few fights on film and not much of them at that so it's like 20 mins or so on YT you have to sit through, but if you can read, he was pretty good actually. The ten or more lineal/undisputed list is very short, and everyone else is considered a very respectable GOAT candidate, but Tommy's not even usually considered an ATG.....and...if I kept going it'd be Ali nixed next, not Tommy...Tommy has 2 or 3 more than Ali. He's second to only Louis.

I already knew Tommy had a ton of defenses, but, for some reason I just assumed others did too, maybe not as much, but I never noticed five was actually a very respectable mark and kinda assumed it was rather normal until I looked directly at it.




I'm fairly tired, and like I said before the is surface research, so I'm sure there are mistakes. If you know right off something's wrong let me know....I had Spinks in there for some reason....****in Spinks, everyone knows he didn't defend **** Anyway, point is I'll mind the **** ups and wouldn't mind help with that.

Edit- Forgot to thank Queenie for inspiring me. Pointing out Lennox never defended his undisputed crown is why I did this, thanks bud.

[billeau2]

Very poignant observation, my hat goes off to you and the QueenB!

Your right about Burns.

[OctoberRed]

Who would you say is lineal now? Is it Fury or has the line been broken?

[QueensburyRules]

- -Lineal title if it ever existed goes back to Sully and broken with Jeffries retirement.

Just like the thread is broken. There is no and never has been a Lineal.Org sanctioned lineal fight.

If I coax Lewis out of retirement with a $50 Mil purse and KO him, I ain't anymore lineal than The Man in the Moon.

Lineal a bit like pet rocks, hula hoops, and Boy George. Fads and lineals wax and wane according to the dictates of The Man in the Moon.

[Marchegiano]

Who would you say is lineal now? Is it Fury or has the line been broken?

I used TBRB/CBZ for lineal to try to limit arguments, but, you are asking me what I think personally so...I'll answer.

I personally like the old traditions for lineal rather than the new ones created by ring or just modern fan imagination, but, neither has anymore legitimacy.

Take Queen's assertion for example. I can find no newspaper clipping or source from Sully to Jeffries' time that makes this same claim. He's being rather exact with the meaning of the word isn't he? Which is fine, he can be, but I just prefer to go based off clippings.

I think Fury is the closest thing to a lineal but what really messes up lineal traditions is the belts. There wasn't any back then. There was just the world champion, so, is a world champion today equal to a world champ of yesterday, or, is a world champ of yesterday equal to an Undisputed? Even the term lineal...Sullivan and Jeffries never heard that term their entire lives. So calling Sullivan a lineal of any kind is post career historical labeling.



I rather like the undisputed, but I can see it both ways. I think Tyson's claim is strong enough to give it to him, especially if you see Wlad or some other not undisputed as lineal.


Plenty retired and came back so I personally have no issue with Fury doing the same as Corbett, except, Corbett is undisputed isn't he?

[QueensburyRules]

- -If you google John L Sullivan Championship Belt a variety of belts come up.

Pretty sure he had at least one and at least half the bareknucklers who proceeded him had one.

Even Luther McCarty had a fancy white champion belt sans any org of the day. There were boxing nutcases even then conjuring this stuff up at their own expense.

[Marchegiano]

- -If you google John L Sullivan Championship Belt a variety of belts come up.

Pretty sure he had at least one and at least half the bareknucklers who proceeded him had one.

Even Luther McCarty had a fancy white champion belt sans any org of the day. There were boxing nutcases even then conjuring this stuff up at their own expense.

The fact that there were a plethora of champions before the sanctioning bodies is actually why I started the list o champs from antiquity to now.

I'm still unclear as to why the vast majority of historical belts or titles are seen as lesser or whatever it is that disqualifies their lineage from the lineage that's recognized by most people.

Because while say the IBF just needs a major champ to back it, finding major champs in the colored ranks has done nothing to raise its prestige....and I'm not sure why. I don't know how Dempsey is an undisputed let alone Sully....or even if Sully is, which kinda why I ducked out on the question and only applied undisputed to the sanctioning era. I just accept that the historians deemed the colored dispute as illegitimate while the NYSAC/NBA are legitimate. Just using colored as a well known example, but yeah, I do mean stuff like the PG vs the diamond belt.


To be clear, I don't think this is hidden or hard to find information, just something I've yet to look directly at.

Like why is Ring acknowledged as a title or value while the Gazette is not. I'm sure why exists, I just don't know it and so I have to follow what I'm told for lack of argument.

[billeau2]

Who would you say is lineal now? Is it Fury or has the line been broken?

Fury. The lineal belongs to the common man. At least those common men who remember to take their gerital and meds (QueenB). it cannot be appropriated by any organization to speak of. it is simple and resolves itself when there is a conflict with no help from authorities, or pundits. Many people resent the title but there is a huge difference between people creating titles and the lineal which clearly states: The title belongs to the man who beats the best.

[billeau2]

The fact that there were a plethora of champions before the sanctioning bodies is actually why I started the list o champs from antiquity to now.

I'm still unclear as to why the vast majority of historical belts or titles are seen as lesser or whatever it is that disqualifies their lineage from the lineage that's recognized by most people.

Because while say the IBF just needs a major champ to back it, finding major champs in the colored ranks has done nothing to raise its prestige....and I'm not sure why. I don't know how Dempsey is an undisputed let alone Sully....or even if Sully is, which kinda why I ducked out on the question and only applied undisputed to the sanctioning era. I just accept that the historians deemed the colored dispute as illegitimate while the NYSAC/NBA are legitimate. Just using colored as a well known example, but yeah, I do mean stuff like the PG vs the diamond belt.


To be clear, I don't think this is hidden or hard to find information, just something I've yet to look directly at.

Like why is Ring acknowledged as a title or value while the Gazette is not. I'm sure why exists, I just don't know it and so I have to follow what I'm told for lack of argument.

I believe the answer to this conflict is simple: It is created and maintained by those with an outside interest in determining the champion. So, we can always predict what will be the criteria: whatever benefits them.

That is what history is in a sense... It is the process of legitimizing information based on the interests that proclaim legitimacy. As an inventor think about what would have happened if the rich and powerful came up in a different world, one where instead of internal combustion, vacuum technology and tubular structures reigned supreme. We might well be comporting around on things that look like a big version of those bank telling set ups with the tubes and plastic cannisters.

Michelle Foucault was the first historian I ever read that basically said: "History is random and existential...as things come in and out, are accepted/rejected based on whims, we are left tracing these random occurances." So Freud for example, had the habit of talking to women and was consequently revamped as a kind of feminist lol."

I think a lot of history lacks a clear purpose and I think boxing legitimacy is a great example of such. We have the cry of those who draw the water for the alphabet soup that we get... That cry, is based on money and power and seldom on an understanding on what is best for boxing. In this respect when you untangle the many strands, it is the work of a true historian and... while I know historically it never had the force of anything more than the fans... The Lineal remains as something to be dug up now and then. It does at least temporarily give the fans some measure of control...if nothing else.

You taught me that the lineal has no real historical legitimacy. I have to acknowledge that fact. But historical legitimacy can be called into question.

[Marchegiano]

I believe the answer to this conflict is simple: It is created and maintained by those with an outside interest in determining the champion. So, we can always predict what will be the criteria: whatever benefits them.

That is what history is in a sense... It is the process of legitimizing information based on the interests that proclaim legitimacy. As an inventor think about what would have happened if the rich and powerful came up in a different world, one where instead of internal combustion, vacuum technology and tubular structures reigned supreme. We might well be comporting around on things that look like a big version of those bank telling set ups with the tubes and plastic cannisters.

Michelle Foucault was the first historian I ever read that basically said: "History is random and existential...as things come in and out, are accepted/rejected based on whims, we are left tracing these random occurances." So Freud for example, had the habit of talking to women and was consequently revamped as a kind of feminist lol."

I think a lot of history lacks a clear purpose and I think boxing legitimacy is a great example of such. We have the cry of those who draw the water for the alphabet soup that we get... That cry, is based on money and power and seldom on an understanding on what is best for boxing. In this respect when you untangle the many strands, it is the work of a true historian and... while I know historically it never had the force of anything more than the fans... The Lineal remains as something to be dug up now and then. It does at least temporarily give the fans some measure of control...if nothing else.

You taught me that the lineal has no real historical legitimacy. I have to acknowledge that fact. But historical legitimacy can be called into question.

....damn

I have been in contact with the IBRO members for sometime now, and while I still use their prestige to back my claims quite often I have for quite a while now got the feeling "verification" has become code for we'll kick it around and if more of us like it than dislike it, it will become verified history.

At first the game was get source material. I was quoting books and articles that had sources mentioned, but not bringing those sources along.

They did teach me that sometimes authors just lie. Sometimes, book or article, they write a story they want to write and claim quotes or other bits of evidence came from a source. Then, when you check the source you do not find what is claimed at all, sometimes something close, sometimes the opposite, sometimes just totally unmentioned.

However, once I became schooled in the art of packaging source material in an easy to read fashion, it went from bring sources to okay, thank you for your research, we'll talk about it and get back to you.

Them being respected historians and such, who are honest to god fans too...really just mega fans with a bit of connection and resource, there is some trust there that they are doing some kind of due diligence.

However, when I read research I know came from me in their books sometimes I'm bothered by their word choice.

It does seem like this. If there's a real respected historian who happens to be covering something related in any way they will get say and it trickles down from there.

If you went to harvard I think you just get to tell guys like the IBRO what history is rather dictatorially based solely on your personal merit rather than the merit of the history.


It forces fans who just want to know simple things like who was the first LW champion or how the term champion itself evolved to mean best of rather than defender of, to be sort of like a detective and track down the story themselves.



IMO, I don't think there is an undisputed in gloved boxing history until Jeffries. Sullivan contented against a whole other sport let alone champion. England was still doing their own thing, as were most nations. The HW champion wasn't regional, they were the HW champion. The HW champion from Australia was the HW champion. The US champ was also the HW champion. Outside of colorline, they met, usually the US won, or, had the more famous fighter in a draw, and so it's easy to assume why US line of HW champions are now the world HW champions, but, in their time, Australian and English champions were not regional, they were disputes.

Jeffries is the man who beat the colored, the world claimants, the pretense, and the line we call lineal now. It was clever of him to fight black men before he was champion, even better of him to fight good black men. The same can be said for the pretense, he didn't really have to fight Sharkey to be the man, but, he did, and there was no more argument from the Earp innodent.

That said, I'm just a guy who gathers newspaper clippings and sends them to more respected fans to get verified, so, usually, when I say something like Sullivan was not undisputed and here's why, what I get is quotes posted at me that contradict me and are coming from more respected historians. When you come in armed with 'verified' information people just say thank you.