Define common boxing terms / words such as bums, journeymen and etc

[Mr Objecitivity]

I know what you are getting at. But there are much more factors at play and it does not work with some randomly chosen cutoff numbers.

With your definition, Darnell boone is a prime example for a bum. But would a bum beat Stevenson? and knock down Kovalev and Ward?

Who in your opinion is a prospect? According to your definition conlan, Stevenson, dubois, joyce are not considered prospects.

How is Holyfield featherfisted at HW when he knocked out and hurt many high level fighters at HW.

Im not a native english speaker, so excuse me if im wrong. To contest = actually fighting for a title? If yes, then your definition is not right. You become a contender, if your resume legitimise a title shot bybeating a top10 ranked fighter at least.

But there are much more factors at play and it does not work with some randomly chosen cutoff numbers.

Most of those numbers aren't 'randomly cut off' or arbitrary. And if some of them are. It still enables me to be objective because I always stick to the standard definition of those words all the time when evaluating / describing boxers. Instead of having double standards where I change the definition when it suits me.

Having a single definition and sticking to it (irrespective of what the definition is) > not having a standard definition and not sticking by a standard definition

With your definition, Darnell boone is a prime example for a bum.

That'll be correct!

But would a bum beat Stevenson? and knock down Kovalev and Ward?

Yes, this is possible in boxing. Especially in the heavier weight divisions where anybody can get beaten, dropped and even knocked out by bums. It's just the likelihood of it happening is low.

Who in your opinion is a prospect? According to your definition conlan, Stevenson, dubois, joyce are not considered prospects.

That's be true (for now).

How is Holyfield featherfisted at HW when he knocked out and hurt many high level fighters at HW.

I analyze the ENTIRE CAREER RECORD of a boxer and not just a single or a few bouts. And judging by Holyfield's ENTIRE CAREER RECORD, he is a feather fist because his KO percentage at heavyweight is below 50%.

To contest = actually fighting for a title? If yes, then your definition is not right. You become a contender, if your resume legitimise a title shot bybeating a top10 ranked fighter at least.

That would also be my definition of the word 'contender'.

[Cutthroat]

For me it's all relative to the current state of the division, the past state of the division, and the divisions around them. Some divisions are still in a development phase while others have settled down.


I tend to regard divisions/fighters higher when they "defend" themselves from invaders from higher/lower weight classes.

Take cruiser for example which I don't think is better than 175 or HW. It had 2 invaders from 175, Bellew/Vlasov, neither champions, break into the top 10 with relative ease. Meanwhile it's had champions like Haye, Cunningham, Adamek, & Huck all fail at heavyweight.

Cruiser is still in development phase like 160, and to a lesser extend 175/HW, these divisions have settled down more so than the others. In a year or so when things start rounding out these will be some of the stronger divisions in boxing.

Bums, journeymen, all relative to the fighters and divisions around them.

[asgarth]

Most of those numbers aren't 'randomly cut off' or arbitrary. And if some of them are. It still enables me to be objective because I always stick to the standard definition of those words all the time when evaluating / describing boxers. Instead of having double standards where I change the definition when it suits me.

Having a single definition and sticking to it (irrespective of what the definition is) > not having a standard definition and not sticking by a standard definition



That'll be correct!



Yes, this is possible in boxing. Especially in the heavier weight divisions where anybody can get beaten, dropped and even knocked out by bums. It's just the likelihood of it happening is low.



That's be true (for now).



I analyze the ENTIRE CAREER RECORD of a boxer and not just a single or a few bouts. And judging by Holyfield's ENTIRE CAREER RECORD, he is a feather fist because his KO percentage at heavyweight is below 50%.



That would also be my definition of the word 'contender'.

And that is where your definitions are not working.

1) Darnell boone is a gatekeeper even though he has many losses. Another example is Robinson castellanos, who had many early losses, but now is a contender at 130 and certainly not a bum.
How can a bum beat Gamboa, rios, caballero and nearly beat coralles.

2) you are using the term prospect differently than every reporter, analyst and everyone else. Congratulation.
If you really think Stevenson is not a prospect than you should think about changing your "definitions"

3)you are judging entire careers by evaluating performances at one weight class?
So pacquiao is a featherfist because he doesn't knock anyone out at 147, his eight weightclass?

Shouldn't you take into account the level of opposition? If someone steps up earlier in his career it is more likely that he will have a lower ko percentage than a guy who is feasting on bums until his 30th fight.

[Real King Kong]

1) Define 'man'!

2) How does one become a 'man' in the first place?

3) What happens if that 'man' retires without losing? Can anybody else ever become a 'man' following this event and if yes, how?

Are you not familiar with title lineage and the meaning of lineal champion? Just google it.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Are you not familiar with title lineage and the meaning of lineal champion? Just google it.

How about you answer the questions I asked you first? Especially the third question.

I ask again:

What happens if that 'man' retires without losing? Can anybody else ever become a 'man' or a lineal champion following this event and if yes, how?

I've researched the definition of a lineal champion but there exists no UNIVERSALLY accepted standard definition. The definitions are subjective and varies from one individual to another.

And from my research, I've not found the answer to the question I just posed to you.

[Mr Objecitivity]

And that is where your definitions are not working.

1) Darnell boone is a gatekeeper even though he has many losses. Another example is Robinson castellanos, who had many early losses, but now is a contender at 130 and certainly not a bum.
How can a bum beat Gamboa, rios, caballero and nearly beat coralles.

2) you are using the term prospect differently than every reporter, analyst and everyone else. Congratulation.
If you really think Stevenson is not a prospect than you should think about changing your "definitions"

3)you are judging entire careers by evaluating performances at one weight class?
So pacquiao is a featherfist because he doesn't knock anyone out at 147, his eight weightclass?

Shouldn't you take into account the level of opposition? If someone steps up earlier in his career it is more likely that he will have a lower ko percentage than a guy who is feasting on bums until his 30th fight.

Firstly, for most of those terms / words, there aren't any 'right' or 'wrong' definitions. A lot of these words / terms like 'bum' have no standard and universally accepted / agreed definition and they aren't even official words / terms to begin with. They are words invented mainly by boxing associates such as fans, journalists, media and etc. And the definitions of those words / terms differs from individual to individual subjectively.

Secondly, despite the fact that there can't be a 'right' or 'wrong' definition, there can be a wrong action where one doesn't stick to a definition and changes the definitions of those words / terms selectively when it suits them to present an agenda. This is called 'double standard'. It doesn't matter what definition someone gives to any of those terms / words. What matters is that they stick to the definition at all times without changing it selectively and randomly based on personal preference.

My definition of the word 'bum' isn't any more correct or incorrect than yours. The only thing you can do to be correct is that whatever definition you give to that word, you must ensure the definition is specifically measurable and that you stick to that definition at all times. Otherwise, you expose yourself as someone with double standards and someone who is a hypocrite.

Anybody can beat anybody in professional boxing. Professional boxing is an actual sport and not some computer program or game where one boxer can never lose to another boxer. If someone claims Adonis Stevenson will beat Darnel Boone. It only means that Adonis Stevenson will MOST LIKELY beat Boone by being the favorite and if they fought say 10 times, Adonis Stevenson will win more times than lose. It doesn't at all mean that Boone could not win or does not stand a chance at winning. So yes, a 'bum' can beat top level opponents occasionally. It doesn't mean they will be the favorite to beat the top level opponent. Nor does it mean they will win more times than lose if they fought each other 10 times in a row or more times in a row.

So provide the correct definition of the word 'prospect', if you disagree with the definition I provided.

There is a difference between evaluating a boxer's overall performance and performance in one weight division. And I specify that exactly which I'm doing. I don't judge a boxer's entire career record based on how they performed in one weight division. rather, I evaluate a boxer's record in different weight divisions separately. Or I evaluate a boxer's entire career record overall in terms of how they performed statistically in every weight division combined.

Pacquiao is indeed a feather fist, specifically and only at 147 pounds (because his KO percentage at 147 pounds is below 50%). However, he isn't a feather fist in weight divisions below welterweight (because his KO percentage is above 50% in those weight divisions).

I actually do take into consideration quality of opposition too. When I compare two boxers, I compare their performances against bums and non-bums. I don't compare one boxer's performances against bums to another boxer's performances against non-bums since that would be an unfair comparison to make. If I do compare two boxers, I make sure I compare both of their performances, ONLY against bums or only against non-bums.

Some boxers are only feather-fisted against non-bums and not feather fisted against bums. Whilst other boxers are non - feather fisted against bums or non-bums.

As an example, Evander Holyfield is a feather-fist at heavyweight against non-bums whilst Mike Tyson is not a feather fist against non-bums.

[Real King Kong]

How about you answer the questions I asked you first? Especially the third question.

I ask again:

What happens if that 'man' retires without losing? Can anybody else ever become a 'man' or a lineal champion following this event and if yes, how?

I've researched the definition of a lineal champion but there exists no UNIVERSALLY accepted standard definition. The definitions are subjective and varies from one individual to another.

And from my research, I've not found the answer to the question I just posed to you.

that's pretty much why the term lineal is antiquated and meaningless. in the days of 1 title, lineages were broken all the time for the reason you stated and by fighters vacating to move to another division. a new lineage was started by the top fighters in that division facing each other. now with all the belts, different ranking systems and politics making it nearly impossible to make the best fight the best...the lineal title in some divisions remains vacant for years.

the ring and tbrb style ranking systems are the closest we can come to crowning lineal champions these days...and for years the ring champ was synonymous with lineal champ. but without a true consensus ranking system, the only true way to become recognized as lineal champion imo, is to unify all the belts...that or revert to having one champion per division.

[Mr Objecitivity]

that's pretty much why the term lineal is antiquated and meaningless. in the days of 1 title, lineages were broken all the time for the reason you stated and by fighters vacating to move to another division. a new lineage was started by the top fighters in that division facing each other. now with all the belts, different ranking systems and politics making it nearly impossible to make the best fight the best...the lineal title in some divisions remains vacant for years.

the ring and tbrb style ranking systems are the closest we can come to crowning lineal champions these days...and for years the ring champ was synonymous with lineal champ. but without a true consensus ranking system, the only true way to become recognized as lineal champion imo, is to unify all the belts...that or revert to having one champion per division.

Glad to see you agree that there exists no COMMON 'meaningful' definition of the term 'lineal champion'. And that's been exactly my point all along! That the definitions aren't very specific or accurate, thus immeasurable and the definitions vary and aren't universally standardized.

My definition may seem arbitrary at first. Especially the number that I selected However, upon further investigation, my definition and the number I selected aren't actually arbitrary and are pretty reasonable.

The reason why I stated that if a champion beats minimum 10 mandatory challengers, they become the 'lineal champion' is because there exists a top 10 ranking in every weight division. And anyone who beats a top 10 ranked boxer, becomes a potential challenger. Thus, the top 10 ranked boxers are the best boxers in the world in any weight division in boxing. So if a boxer is able to defeat 10 mandatory challengers ranked in the top 10, then that's equivalent to beating the 'best possible opponents' in the weight division and thus can be classified as 'cleaning up the weight division'. As after that, one would've proven himself against every potential contender / 'best possible opponents'..

So in summary, for a boxer to qualify as a 'lineal champion', they must either defeat a former linear champion or clean up their weight division according to the criteria I provided (defeating 10 mandatory challengers ranked in the top 10). The latter is what one must do if a former lineal champion retires without being defeated (Vitali Klitschko). Otherwise, it would be impossible for any other boxer to ever become a 'lineal champion'.

[Real King Kong]

Glad to see you agree that there exists no COMMON 'meaningful' definition of the term 'lineal champion'. And that's been exactly my point all along! That the definitions aren't very specific or accurate, thus immeasurable and the definitions vary and aren't universally standardized.

My definition may seem arbitrary at first. Especially the number that I selected However, upon further investigation, my definition and the number I selected aren't actually arbitrary and are pretty reasonable.

The reason why I stated that if a champion beats minimum 10 mandatory challengers, they become the 'lineal champion' is because there exists a top 10 ranking in every weight division. And anyone who beats a top 10 ranked boxer, becomes a potential challenger. Thus, the top 10 ranked boxers are the best boxers in the world in any weight division in boxing. So if a boxer is able to defeat 10 mandatory challengers ranked in the top 10, then that's equivalent to beating the 'best possible opponents' in the weight division and thus can be classified as 'cleaning up the weight division'. As after that, one would've proven himself against every potential contender / 'best possible opponents'..

So in summary, for a boxer to qualify as a 'lineal champion', they must either defeat a former linear champion or clean up their weight division according to the criteria I provided (defeating 10 mandatory challengers ranked in the top 10). The latter is what one must do if a former lineal champion retires without being defeated (Vitali Klitschko). Otherwise, it would be impossible for any other boxer to ever become a 'lineal champion'.

I still disagree if you are suggesting that defending any belt 10 times would make someone lineal champ. The problem is, all the belts have different ranking systems and they don't always overlap. Imo, unifying the division is the only way...that is of course unless we recognize ring or trbr as legit.

[Elroy The Great]

Bum -
2 levels;
a) able to beat every lesser opponents ass but gets drubbed when he himself steps up.
b) a guy who loses more than he wins and is only occasionally competitive.

if a guy has a fan friendly style, he will get a pass

Rookie / Novice -
self explanatory. lomas situation notwithstanding, a dude whos doing the 4rd thing.

Journeyman -
1 time gatekeeper. that guy whos the perfect tune up. shot guy who was once ok.

Bum beater -
a guy who is perfect against lower level guys (see mike tyson prior to winning a title).

ATG -
when a guys career is over, his resume is compared to those already deemed to be great.

Featherfist -
self explanatory. low ko %. no one is worried about incoming (see paulie m).

Running -
what a scared fighter is called doing but is usually a guy setting a trap

Boxing -
jabber, stick n move, combo thrower

Out-boxing
just watch a may fight

Over-powering -
just watch gatti vs gamache

Ducking -
same as running but usually isnt. some say a person will be too scared to sign that contract. probably the contract needs rewording or the money isnt right or the dates are off....