Clarification Please

[Foodie One]

ok baby im sorry..gimme a kiss

Just this one time. The next time, you'll get a major spanking.

[larry x]

Just this one time. The next time, you'll get a major spanking.

well in that case :wank:....naw just playing

[BoxingChaos]

Is it "lineal" or "linear" title? I've heard the guys at HBO call it linear and other broadcasters call it lineal. What's the reason for this? JAT

Here is a very good article on the subject and it talks about your boy

Lineal or linear?
SPORTING CHANCE By Joaquin M. Henson Updated May 10, 2009 12:00 AM

There is some confusion on the right term to describe Manny Pacquiao’s status as an undisputed champion in a particular weight division. Is it “linear” or “lineal?”

Writer Kevin Iole of Yahoo! Sports used the term “linear” to describe Pacquiao’s claim to the featherweight championship which he took from Marco Antonio Barrera in 2003. Barrera was then considered the “true” world featherweight titlist even if he was recognized only by The Ring Magazine as the “people’s” champion.

“Pacquiao was the linear champion at featherweight though he never held a sanctioning body belt and he’d become the linear champion if he were to defeat (Ricky) Hatton,” said Iole before the Filipino poleaxed the Hitman to wrest the lightwelterweight crown last weekend.

But Dan Rafael of ESPN.com preferred “lineal” to “linear” in referring to Pacquiao’s collection of undisputed titles in the flyweight, featherweight, superfeatherweight and lightwelterweight classes.

“Lineal, as in the man who beat the man, who beat the man, who beat the man, etc.,” wrote Rafael. “In other words, he’ll be considered the ‘real’ champion in a fourth division, not just a mere titleholder, the way he was when he claimed his junior featherweight belt and lightweight title.”

In Rafael’s view, Pacquiao didn’t earn global recognition when he won the IBF superbantamweight (or junior featherweight) and WBC lightweight crowns. Rafael said the two titles weren’t “lineal” since others had more legitimate right to universal recognition at that time.

Another writer Jake Donovan of boxingscene.com sided with Rafael.

“A win for Pacquiao (over Hatton) will make him the only fighter in boxing history to claim lineal world titles in four separate weight classes, having previously served as the true world champion at flyweight, featherweight and junior lightweight (or superfeatherweight),” wrote Donovan. “He has also earned alphabet titles at junior featherweight and lightweight.”

Still another writer Michael Falgoust of USA Today referred to Pacquiao’s “lineal” titles in charting his ascension to the thrones of four divisions. Falgoust said Pacquiao solidified his position as the best fighter of his era in capturing six world titles in different divisions, including four of the “lineal” variety.

Webster’s Dictionary defines “lineal” as “in the direct line of descent from an ancestor, hereditary, of or composed of lines; linear” and “linear” as “of or relating to a line or lines, in relation to length only; extended in a line, designating or of a style of art in which forms are sharply delineated and line is emphasized over color, light and shadow.”

From Webster’s definitions, using “linear” or “lineal” to describe Pacquiao’s undisputed championships seems interchangeably correct. “Lineal,” however, depicts a deeper meaning because of the “lineage” or ancestry fact. But in terms of delineating the “true” champion from a spectrum of alphabet soup champions, using “linear” may be more appropriate as “lineal” relates to some kind of heredity, not an acquired “lineage.” Either is acceptable for as long as the reference is to undisputed global recognition of a world champion.

For the record, Pacquiao is one of only five fighters in history to collect six titles in six divisions. The others are James Toney, Tommy Hearns, Hector Camacho and Oscar de la Hoya. His titles are WBC and “linear” flyweight (112-pound limit), IBF superbantamweight or junior featherweight (122), “linear” featherweight (126), WBC and “linear” superfeatherweight (130), WBC lightweight (135) and IBO and “linear” lightwelterweight or superlightweight (140).

There is also some confusion on whether Pacquiao’s win over Hatton was by knockout or technical knockout. In boxing terms, a knockout is registered only when the referee finishes the count of 10. A technical knockout is declared when the referee stops a fight because a protagonist is unable to defend himself or is in a state of helplessness or suffers a grave injury, such as a cut inflicted by a punch, without reaching the count of 10. Since referee Kenny Bayless didn’t bother to count out Hatton, the outcome went down in the record books as a technical knockout.

But you and I know that Bayless could’ve counted to 20 and Hatton wouldn’t have gotten up. Perhaps, in a situation like that, the outcome should’ve been considered a knockout but like “linear” or “lineal,” it’s really just a matter of semantics.

* * *

[Foodie One]

Here is a very good article on the subject and it talks about your boy

Lineal or linear?
SPORTING CHANCE By Joaquin M. Henson Updated May 10, 2009 12:00 AM

There is some confusion on the right term to describe Manny Pacquiao’s status as an undisputed champion in a particular weight division. Is it “linear” or “lineal?”

Writer Kevin Iole of Yahoo! Sports used the term “linear” to describe Pacquiao’s claim to the featherweight championship which he took from Marco Antonio Barrera in 2003. Barrera was then considered the “true” world featherweight titlist even if he was recognized only by The Ring Magazine as the “people’s” champion.

“Pacquiao was the linear champion at featherweight though he never held a sanctioning body belt and he’d become the linear champion if he were to defeat (Ricky) Hatton,” said Iole before the Filipino poleaxed the Hitman to wrest the lightwelterweight crown last weekend.

But Dan Rafael of ESPN.com preferred “lineal” to “linear” in referring to Pacquiao’s collection of undisputed titles in the flyweight, featherweight, superfeatherweight and lightwelterweight classes.

“Lineal, as in the man who beat the man, who beat the man, who beat the man, etc.,” wrote Rafael. “In other words, he’ll be considered the ‘real’ champion in a fourth division, not just a mere titleholder, the way he was when he claimed his junior featherweight belt and lightweight title.”

In Rafael’s view, Pacquiao didn’t earn global recognition when he won the IBF superbantamweight (or junior featherweight) and WBC lightweight crowns. Rafael said the two titles weren’t “lineal” since others had more legitimate right to universal recognition at that time.

Another writer Jake Donovan of boxingscene.com sided with Rafael.

“A win for Pacquiao (over Hatton) will make him the only fighter in boxing history to claim lineal world titles in four separate weight classes, having previously served as the true world champion at flyweight, featherweight and junior lightweight (or superfeatherweight),” wrote Donovan. “He has also earned alphabet titles at junior featherweight and lightweight.”

Still another writer Michael Falgoust of USA Today referred to Pacquiao’s “lineal” titles in charting his ascension to the thrones of four divisions. Falgoust said Pacquiao solidified his position as the best fighter of his era in capturing six world titles in different divisions, including four of the “lineal” variety.

Webster’s Dictionary defines “lineal” as “in the direct line of descent from an ancestor, hereditary, of or composed of lines; linear” and “linear” as “of or relating to a line or lines, in relation to length only; extended in a line, designating or of a style of art in which forms are sharply delineated and line is emphasized over color, light and shadow.”

From Webster’s definitions, using “linear” or “lineal” to describe Pacquiao’s undisputed championships seems interchangeably correct. “Lineal,” however, depicts a deeper meaning because of the “lineage” or ancestry fact. But in terms of delineating the “true” champion from a spectrum of alphabet soup champions, using “linear” may be more appropriate as “lineal” relates to some kind of heredity, not an acquired “lineage.” Either is acceptable for as long as the reference is to undisputed global recognition of a world champion.

For the record, Pacquiao is one of only five fighters in history to collect six titles in six divisions. The others are James Toney, Tommy Hearns, Hector Camacho and Oscar de la Hoya. His titles are WBC and “linear” flyweight (112-pound limit), IBF superbantamweight or junior featherweight (122), “linear” featherweight (126), WBC and “linear” superfeatherweight (130), WBC lightweight (135) and IBO and “linear” lightwelterweight or superlightweight (140).

There is also some confusion on whether Pacquiao’s win over Hatton was by knockout or technical knockout. In boxing terms, a knockout is registered only when the referee finishes the count of 10. A technical knockout is declared when the referee stops a fight because a protagonist is unable to defend himself or is in a state of helplessness or suffers a grave injury, such as a cut inflicted by a punch, without reaching the count of 10. Since referee Kenny Bayless didn’t bother to count out Hatton, the outcome went down in the record books as a technical knockout.

But you and I know that Bayless could’ve counted to 20 and Hatton wouldn’t have gotten up. Perhaps, in a situation like that, the outcome should’ve been considered a knockout but like “linear” or “lineal,” it’s really just a matter of semantics.

* * *

Very long, thanks.

Maricel

[freedom213]

Very long, thanks.

Maricel

yes but he is correct lineal can best be conceptualized when you think about kings, a monarchy. Did Kevin Iole really think it was linear?