-
-
because boxing isnt linealComment
-
Because y'all don't even know the **** lineal is! If you knew the history of the lineal title you'd know sanctioning bodies are a comparative good thing.
Lineal is such a ****hole title with such terrible history and corruption it inspired sanctioning bodies who were applauded, heralded, loved, and exalted for making boxing as clean as it is presently.....which, yeah, boxing, WBC/WBA, some dirty ass ****....should tell you how ****in' **** lineal was.
It was a ****** idea in the 70s and a dumbass idea now. You don't move forward by going backwards.
Even if you don't know the ins and outs of title exchanges prior to sanctioning bodies what history even alludes to a time pre-body when boxing wasn't the dirtiest sport a man could take part in?
Sanctioning Bodies is why ***** ass mother ****ers like Jem Ward will never be champ againComment
-
I’m not sure why that’s evidence that the lineal title is no good.
He beat the guy who beat Dauriz Michalczewski.
Michalczewski beat Virgil Hill to unify the IBF, WBA and WBO titles along with winning the lineal championship.
The WBA stripped Michalczewski for taking a photo with the WBA, WBO and IBF belts together... LOL
The IBF ordered he fight a mandatory five weeks after he beat Hill and stripped him when he said that was impossible.
So the ABC titles screwed that all up and if they had treated him fairly, he probably would have fought Roy Jones and there never would have been a debate about that title.
Comment
-
Fitzsimmon won the HW championship twice, only one was real.
We only recognize one of them because Corbett stripped him, Maher, and Sharkey simply by returning to boxing and claiming his title. James gave it away, fought no one for it, and got it back just to get a payday with Fitzs.
When has a sanctioning body stripped an entire lineage out of existence to hand their belt back to a former champion without so much as a vacancy fight? Literally never.
So when wasn't it real? When Peter Maher beat the **** outta Steven O'Donnell for the official HW championship of the world and was handed the belt; It wasn't real.
When Deaf Burke fought Simon Byrne it wasn't real.
When Yankee Sullivan fought Tom Hyer it wasn't real.
When Tom Molyneaux fought Tom Cribb it wasn't real.
When Sayers fought Heenan it wasn't real.
When Mendoza fought Jackson it wasn't real.
The entire Figg era was a farce. Whittaker-Gondolier. Whittaker-Peartree so on, until Slack.
Slack himself is widely suspect for fixed fights.
There's you some samples that cover the entire history, no era left out, one per generation, and, I'm being short with that ****.
Now, you point to the shining gold era when the lineal was actually worth a **** and can be counted on for anything but bull**** artists bull****ting fans.
For every Hen Pearce there is John Jackson. For every Sullivan there is a Maher.Comment
-
I’m sure the title was questionable in the 1700s and 1800s. With racism in the early 1900s, there were champions that would only fight other white men, although I must say I doubt the ABC titles would have helped fix racism LOL.
So I’m going to go with lineal being the best choice from about 1937 to 2019, LMFAO.
Comment
-
It's not necessarily about who they win it off man, the major complaint is about who they defend it against. The 'lineal' title doesn't, as things stand, have any mandatory requirements - much like these Bullchit franchise championships - and no oversight. You reckon it's a good idea that we just blindly crown the man who beat the man regardless of whether the 'man' was past it and regardless of whether he then goes on to defend against nobody in particular for the next 6 or 7 years?
That might be good enough for you, man, but I think I'd rather go for a slightly more nuanced or at least flexible system.Comment
Tweet
Comment