Mayweather was never a WBC WW linear champion. Neither was Baldomir.

[Boofdatruth]

yep, where the lineage bs, a variation of the fallacious argument that was (and still is in some parts of the world) being used by the few to enslave the many is used in a much more childish form as a way to legitimize "true" from "false" champions.

No, it is used as the truth. It is to legitimize titles Margs and Cotto who are holding which are bogus titles, and to distinguish Floyd as a man we SHOULD criticize when anyone calls him the lineal/linear champion. Cotto, Margs and Williams are not champs. Berto is not a champion. You guys use this argument for your own good. I thought you were true boxing fans lol.

[BattlingNelson]

I meant the premise of this thread.

What if a German won the linear championship?

Erdei is linear champ. He fights out of Germany.

The linear champions can be found here:

http://cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/champ.htm

[Boofdatruth]

No it doesn't it makes Mosley an undisputed champion. The guys after him are in the line from where he unified (became undisputed) so they are linear because they are following the line.

Mosley - undisputed
Forrest - linear
Mayorga - linear
Stinx - linear
Zab - linear
Baldomir - linear
Mayweather - linear

Baldomir follows the line that Mosley started by unifying the division (becoming undisputed champ)

With Mayweather retiring there will be a new line started.

So where do Williams, Berto, Blotto and Margscantfightthough fit in at?

[Boofdatruth]

Erdei is linear champ. He fights out of Germany.

The linear champions can be found here:

http://cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/champ.htm

Bat, you basically said, @!$@#!#$! Dan Rafael lol...

[BattlingNelson]

Bat, you basically said, @!$@#!#$! Dan Rafael lol...

Dan Rafael aint worth **** if you ask me.

[PRboxingfan]

Wow, a well constructed answer!



However, this is what you are doing (specially in the last paragraph). You are using geometrical/mathematical truths not as way of COMPARING (or exemplifying), but as a way of EQUATING, and that is a fallacy. To equate the geometrical definition of a line and a point, which are tautological truths of the highest level, to an example in which what must be compared (or in your case, equated), to the point, is the word champion, constitutes a falsehood by itself (like saying that because we are talking about Ali and how he talks about moving like a butterfly and stinging like a bee, you the come to me and say "Do you know about bees? Well if a bee stings you, she dies, therefore, if Ali hits you, he will die"), and because the word champion, as applied by the examples provided by you and illustrated by the arguing of the guy with the Italian flag in the avatar is an arbitrary construction. Hence, you have to finish you argument with "once that champ has been established. By who? Who died to make you king? Oh, again, the arbitrary process, the end of legitimacy, or, as you make it, a line in which the first point is an illegitimate, arbitrary one, but the second one, is a legitimate, non-arbitrary one, by virtue of equating tautologies with non-tautologies.



More elegantly seen in this quote:



Pythagoras's theorem is a statement about objects that have no width, mass, or time duration. It is not a statement about depressions in sand, sticks, or strings. [...] The fact that in a right triangle, the sum of the squares of the legs equals the square of the hypotenuse was true long before Pythagoras or even planet Earth was around; that it was discovered by some humans (long before Pythagoras, actually) has no bearing on its validity.

Actually, I was arguing by analogy. It's well known in philosophy, since the days of Hume, at least, that arguments by analogy are flawed to begin with as nothing can exactly compare to something else unless it's the same thing, in which case you don't need an analogy. I use it, not to express truth, but to help in the understanding of truth. That is where arguments by analogy excel.

You keep bringing up that this or that is arbitrary. Well, philosophically speaking, EVERYTHING is arbitrary. Your name, the sun, the President, everything is arbitrary and subject to how people define it. Some group must agree on something and define it, that's how we get everything. What is anything but it's definition? And, what's a definition but a man-composed grouping of words that was agreed upon by some group. In Pythagoras' theorem, you need to first agree that there are 180 degrees in the sum of all angles in a triangle. If you do not agree with this, then Pythagoras' theorem doesn't hold water to you.

In boxing, a group of people (the majority OR a consensus) agree that X or Y fighter is THE champion at a particular weight. How they come to this conclusion is irrelevant to the fact that it's been defined as such. As with everything else in this world, a group defines some definition that the rest of us use as a basis for our conclusions. We take the consensus definition of what THE champion is and then use the English language (such as the word lineal) to define those who come after this champion.

It's well known in nature that everything comes to an end. It's also well known that every beginning is the end of something else. So, too, with lineal championships. A search for THE champion begins with the end of the lineal champs reign as such. A new lineal champ is established once someone defeats the person considered THE champion.

I can use the example of royalty if you'd like. It's like a different dynasty. The first Chinese Dynasty was the Xia dynasty. Every Xia emperor after the first Xia emperor was part of the Xia lineal dynasty. Can we agree on this? Well, once the first Shang emperor came to power, and the last Xia emperor was no longer in power, the Xia line came to an end and the Shang lineal dynasty was established. A new line of emperors in China (just like we get a new line of champions in boxing). We have dynasties where titles are passed lineally. Once a line is broken, a new one begins, but it doesn't start where the other left off, it starts it's own line. What I'm trying to say is that it's not a continuous line from the first champion until today. There are several lines of champions, all with a beginning and an end (except for the current ones, who haven't ended, obviously).

[Boofdatruth]

Actually, I was arguing by analogy. It's well known in philosophy, since the days of Hume, at least, that arguments by analogy are flawed to begin with as nothing can exactly compare to something else unless it's the same thing, in which case you don't need an analogy. I use it, not to express truth, but to help in the understanding of truth. That is where arguments by analogy excel.

You keep bringing up that this or that is arbitrary. Well, philosophically speaking, EVERYTHING is arbitrary. Your name, the sun, the President, everything is arbitrary and subject to how people define it. Some group must agree on something and define it, that's how we get everything. What is anything but it's definition? And, what's a definition but a man-composed grouping of words that was agreed upon by some group. In Pythagoras' theorem, you need to first agree that there are 180 degrees in the sum of all angles in a triangle. If you do not agree with this, then Pythagoras' theorem doesn't hold water to you.

In boxing, a group of people (the majority OR a consensus) agree that X or Y fighter is THE champion at a particular weight. How they come to this conclusion is irrelevant to the fact that it's been defined as such. As with everything else in this world, a group defines some definition that the rest of us use as a basis for our conclusions. We take the consensus definition of what THE champion is and then use the English language (such as the word lineal) to define those who come after this champion.

It's well known in nature that everything comes to an end. It's also well known that every beginning is the end of something else. So, too, with lineal championships. A search for THE champion begins with the end of the lineal champs reign as such. A new lineal champ is established once someone defeats the person considered THE champion.

I can use the example of royalty if you'd like. It's like a different dynasty. The first Chinese Dynasty was the Xia dynasty. Every Xia emperor after the first Xia emperor was part of the Xia lineal dynasty. Can we agree on this? Well, once the first Shang emperor came to power, and the last Xia emperor was no longer in power, the Xia line came to an end and the Shang lineal dynasty was established. A new line of emperors in China (just like we get a new line of champions in boxing). We have dynasties where titles are passed lineally. Once a line is broken, a new one begins, but it doesn't start where the other left off, it starts it's own line. What I'm trying to say is that it's not a continuous line from the first champion until today. There are several lines of champions, all with a beginning and an end (except for the current ones, who haven't ended, obviously).

You know, I didn't think of it this way. Hold on, I need to speak to my wife. (Whipser) Honey, make sure our kids know how to use the ignore button in case they don't need to read anyone's convoluted, infantile ramblings. I don't want them running into weirdos with weirdo posts on any forums that they discover while online.