Tweet
The "linear championship" myth...
Debunking the so-called "linear" championship is a matter of common sense!
by Jimmy Bryght, independent sportswriter
Everyone always talks about the corruption of the great sport of boxing. If it isn't a fight fix, it's a murdering, big-haired promotor who is ripping off the sport or it's the sanctioning bodies (who I call the alphabet bandits) or the criminal judges and so on. Is that all you think is bad about the Sweet Science? What about the fans? What about the media? Who created these monsters we call promoters? Who gave birth to these governors that giveth the many titles? And who the hell gave The Ring Magazine editor Nigel Collins the power to call fighters the real world champions?
For the last decade or so, the media and the fans have talked incessantly about avoiding the alphabet soup titles and embracing The Ring Magazine beltholder as the so-called 'real' champ, regardless of weight class. Even the fighters have gotten it into their heads to disregard the WBC, WBA, IBF and others in favor of The Ring "title". Marco Antonio Barrera, Antonio Tarver and Glen Johnson have all disregarded titles in order to fight whom they thought to be better opponents than the alphabet mandatories. Hey, that's cool. To each their own, right? I'm the last person who wants to endorse the alphabet bandits, but I'm not going to be so quick to let a magazine represent me or my opinion in regards to whom a recognized champion should be.
Last time I checked, I could do that all by myself.
Anyway, Nigel Collins has alot of people convinced that he believes in the theory of a "linear" championship as method of naming his titlists. There's a whole formula he has concocted which seems to work for most people and I'll admit, some of it makes good sense. But, I don't and never have believed in the mythical "linear" ideal. Here's why...
...the whole premise of the "linear" title is to establish a constant line of champions, recognizeable in each instance as "the man who beat the man". The title's own existence is inherently dependent on one man's victory over the previous titleholder in order to get the recognition as champion. That's where the flaw lies; once someone retires without losing the championship in the ring, a new title must be manufactured, therefore cancelling out the idea of any true lineage or existing line.
By definition by the American Heritage Dictionary, "linear" or "lineal" means, "belonging to or being within the direct and unbroken line of descent from an ancestral source."
Again - an unbroken line! A fighter who retires breaks the linear line of succession. Period. It's common sense!
For example, when James Jeffries retired in 1905 after knocking out Bob Fitzsimmons for the heavyweight title, he became the first man to walk away from the ring as champion (under modern Queensbury Rules).
So, in effect, the "linear" title died right then since "the man" retired. Of course, that was unacceptable to the media and to the people because boxing requires champions. So, the "title" was miraculously resurrected.
Of course, then someone has to fight for the newly-manufactured title to be crowned as the new champion. So...who gets to say that this guy should fight that guy or this dude is better than what's-his-name? Who has the right to rank the two best guys in order to attempt to legitimize this "title"? The ratings system has always been based on opinion and conjecture (and more recently, cash bribes).
So, in my opinion, there is no such thing as a true "linear" heavyweight championship - just a manufactured series of subsequent titles that have a sometimes dubious (see Lennox Lewis), and sometimes glorious (see Rocky Marciano) history. Of course, all weight classes are affected by this theory, not just the heavyweights.
You see, I don't give much credit to the WBC or IBF or any of the other hundred boxing organizations and I give even less to the media. I just have an opinion like everyone else...but I'm intelligent enough not to let a magazine smear or influence my judgement of who is number one and who deserves to be called "the champion."
(this is an article, so there will be no bantering about it with me. I write, then I walk away and let the wolves fight over it while I laugh and sip my beer. Have fun!)
by Jimmy Bryght, independent sportswriter
Everyone always talks about the corruption of the great sport of boxing. If it isn't a fight fix, it's a murdering, big-haired promotor who is ripping off the sport or it's the sanctioning bodies (who I call the alphabet bandits) or the criminal judges and so on. Is that all you think is bad about the Sweet Science? What about the fans? What about the media? Who created these monsters we call promoters? Who gave birth to these governors that giveth the many titles? And who the hell gave The Ring Magazine editor Nigel Collins the power to call fighters the real world champions?
For the last decade or so, the media and the fans have talked incessantly about avoiding the alphabet soup titles and embracing The Ring Magazine beltholder as the so-called 'real' champ, regardless of weight class. Even the fighters have gotten it into their heads to disregard the WBC, WBA, IBF and others in favor of The Ring "title". Marco Antonio Barrera, Antonio Tarver and Glen Johnson have all disregarded titles in order to fight whom they thought to be better opponents than the alphabet mandatories. Hey, that's cool. To each their own, right? I'm the last person who wants to endorse the alphabet bandits, but I'm not going to be so quick to let a magazine represent me or my opinion in regards to whom a recognized champion should be.
Last time I checked, I could do that all by myself.
Anyway, Nigel Collins has alot of people convinced that he believes in the theory of a "linear" championship as method of naming his titlists. There's a whole formula he has concocted which seems to work for most people and I'll admit, some of it makes good sense. But, I don't and never have believed in the mythical "linear" ideal. Here's why...
...the whole premise of the "linear" title is to establish a constant line of champions, recognizeable in each instance as "the man who beat the man". The title's own existence is inherently dependent on one man's victory over the previous titleholder in order to get the recognition as champion. That's where the flaw lies; once someone retires without losing the championship in the ring, a new title must be manufactured, therefore cancelling out the idea of any true lineage or existing line.
By definition by the American Heritage Dictionary, "linear" or "lineal" means, "belonging to or being within the direct and unbroken line of descent from an ancestral source."
Again - an unbroken line! A fighter who retires breaks the linear line of succession. Period. It's common sense!
For example, when James Jeffries retired in 1905 after knocking out Bob Fitzsimmons for the heavyweight title, he became the first man to walk away from the ring as champion (under modern Queensbury Rules).
So, in effect, the "linear" title died right then since "the man" retired. Of course, that was unacceptable to the media and to the people because boxing requires champions. So, the "title" was miraculously resurrected.
Of course, then someone has to fight for the newly-manufactured title to be crowned as the new champion. So...who gets to say that this guy should fight that guy or this dude is better than what's-his-name? Who has the right to rank the two best guys in order to attempt to legitimize this "title"? The ratings system has always been based on opinion and conjecture (and more recently, cash bribes).
So, in my opinion, there is no such thing as a true "linear" heavyweight championship - just a manufactured series of subsequent titles that have a sometimes dubious (see Lennox Lewis), and sometimes glorious (see Rocky Marciano) history. Of course, all weight classes are affected by this theory, not just the heavyweights.
You see, I don't give much credit to the WBC or IBF or any of the other hundred boxing organizations and I give even less to the media. I just have an opinion like everyone else...but I'm intelligent enough not to let a magazine smear or influence my judgement of who is number one and who deserves to be called "the champion."
(this is an article, so there will be no bantering about it with me. I write, then I walk away and let the wolves fight over it while I laugh and sip my beer. Have fun!)
Comment