Wlad–Chagaev & the lineal HW title

[billeau2]

You can't compare because the passing of the torch doesn't require the monarch to be, to better the current monarch to take their place. King is just in relation to their place at the top of boxing, it is a metaphor they are not literally a King.

I am arguing because I do not agree with your stance that you know better than everyone else because you do not recognise progression and evolution within the sport, choosing nostalgia and claiming it to be historical lesson.

If you want to teach people then do so but don't be condisending just saying you know stuff people don't and don't be surprised when you get questioned. Often there are different ways of interpritating history and your interpretaion may not always be the right one or sometimes entirely relevant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_of_Heaven

[Marchegiano]

The concept of the Empror in China is the same: The empror must fufill the mandate of heaven which means creating a structure where resources can reach all areas of China during emergencies like a food famine. When the empror could not fufill those mandates he was deposed.... This is a historical fact.

Let's switch up the angle; can you think of any system where the ruler or head is not subject to mutiny?

Absolute power is more of passing thing isn't it?

Government or not I can't think of a single human hierarchy that is not subject to popular complacency.

[billeau2]

Talking about the best guys. How do you categorize a fighter as one of the best guys. For example, Ortiz, hez beaten no body. His best win is Jennings who just KTFO last week by a midget and got KTFO himself on his first step up fight.
On what basis are eating him as one of the best guys?

I don't really know what you are asking. I suspect you are making the transition point more complex by invoking a concept of "best" guy. Lets take M's post and say James Figg is the father of boxing. We will do this purely for clarity not to insult the research M has done... Well as M tells us, the champion is who James Figg tells us who the champ is.

So, there is no lineal in effect and we have a point of origin. From this point on, lets be hypothetical to make it easy to follow. You have scisms in the line, fights about who is champ, etc and a very talented guy, like Mendoza comes along and beats all commers and becomes the champ. Now, we have "the best." Simply stated, at this point and onwards, the fans can declare that despite the arrogance of Figg, despite the enterprise of the chisalers. the Champ will be the guy who beats the present champion...vis a vis, the best.

This is really all anyone needs to understand to comprehend the lineal. Now, maybe a guy beats the best and retires, So one can pick another best, keep the title with the retired fighter, etc. Heres what confused people I suspect: There does not have to be one way to determine who is the lineal at this point. maybe the present champ is not very good, and the retired guy was exceptional? You can keep the lineal with the retired guy, or...lets say the present guy is talented and winning fights, you can say that he becomes the lineal. and here is why...

No matter what you do, eventually there should emerge one guy who is the best in the open division where all can challenge him. So even if the lineal is in dispute and branches for a while? it will come back to the most talented fighter. That is the best way I can explain "the best" to you. If Ortiz beats a title holder who was the best, perhaps one can call him a lineal...

In my opinion the problem with calling Ortiz a lineal is the reason I think of the title only for an open division and the premier division, the heavyweights... There are too many fighters in the middle divisions. The lineal would work for someone like Robinson, or Floyd, but it losses its luster when there are a lot of not so good fighters that have to unify. That is my opinion though.

[billeau2]

Let's switch up the angle; can you think of any system where the ruler or head is not subject to mutiny?

Absolute power is more of passing thing isn't it?

Government or not I can't think of a single human hierarchy that is not subject to popular complacency.

I was going to say the Honeymooners...Alice really wielded an iron will! and then I was going to say my house where I am the King, then I remembered the cast iron cookware...

Seriously though...good point!

[Laligalaliga]

I don't really know what you are asking. I suspect you are making the transition point more complex by invoking a concept of "best" guy. Lets take M's post and say James Figg is the father of boxing. We will do this purely for clarity not to insult the research M has done... Well as M tells us, the champion is who James Figg tells us who the champ is.

So, there is no lineal in effect and we have a point of origin. From this point on, lets be hypothetical to make it easy to follow. You have scisms in the line, fights about who is champ, etc and a very talented guy, like Mendoza comes along and beats all commers and becomes the champ. Now, we have "the best." Simply stated, at this point and onwards, the fans can declare that despite the arrogance of Figg, despite the enterprise of the chisalers. the Champ will be the guy who beats the present champion...vis a vis, the best.

This is really all anyone needs to understand to comprehend the lineal. Now, maybe a guy beats the best and retires, So one can pick another best, keep the title with the retired fighter, etc. Heres what confused people I suspect: There does not have to be one way to determine who is the lineal at this point. maybe the present champ is not very good, and the retired guy was exceptional? You can keep the lineal with the retired guy, or...lets say the present guy is talented and winning fights, you can say that he becomes the lineal. and here is why...

No matter what you do, eventually there should emerge one guy who is the best in the open division where all can challenge him. So even if the lineal is in dispute and branches for a while? it will come back to the most talented fighter. That is the best way I can explain "the best" to you. If Ortiz beats a title holder who was the best, perhaps one can call him a lineal...

In my opinion the problem with calling Ortiz a lineal is the reason I think of the title only for an open division and the premier division, the heavyweights... There are too many fighters in the middle divisions. The lineal would work for someone like Robinson, or Floyd, but it losses its luster when there are a lot of not so good fighters that have to unify. That is my opinion though.

Nice comments. Very good contributions.
Personally I don't give fvvk about that lineal title. I believe in fighting your way to a mandatory and get the champ. If you are good enough, beat him, become the champ and call the shots.
Boxing is not that difficult as some people wants us to believe.

[QueensburyRules]

--- One example is George Foreman losing his "lineal" crown to Briggs.

Problem being his title was passed to Briggs by fiat, not a legit victory by the "people" rating.

[billeau2]

Nice comments. Very good contributions.
Personally I don't give fvvk about that lineal title. I believe in fighting your way to a mandatory and get the champ. If you are good enough, beat him, become the champ and call the shots.
Boxing is not that difficult as some people wants us to believe.

Thats kind of the point! Thats how most people feel. Would it suprise you to know that the most jealously guarded, oldest unbroken line, xenophobic, martial arts traditions... which are by and large in Japan...go by one simple rule? The line is broken when no successor carries the art for a generation. People fight over, debate and there is even a market for people to literally buy successorships. But in determining the most ancient arts? You have the Kojiki (record of ancient matters) which mentions the one indigenious art in Japan: Sumo Te...and after that the arts that have an unbroken line of successors called the KoRyu, the oldest of which is from the 1500s Taekenuchi ryo. It is that simple. That means that any art in this book has never been without a head instructor, to guide the art for generations.

In Boxing it is also simple: The guy who beats the best is the best. Mandatories and other such things are a way to "funnel" but at the end of the day, if you are looking at an unbroken succession of lineal champs, guys who, in an open division competed and beat the best out there with no restraints... You have simplicity and a solid, simple mechanism to determine who is champ. This extends many times to light heavies, cruisers and even middle weights. When the heavyweight division is weak, an excellent fighter at light heavy can take that title.

[billeau2]

--- One example is George Foreman losing his "lineal" crown to Briggs.

Problem being his title was passed to Briggs by fiat, not a legit victory by the "people" rating.

Thats a very good point. But is the issue really involving the people? The people in this case were very biased against Lennox Lewis actually. So in a sense this was will of the people.

Foreman got the Lineal because Moorer beat Holyfield who was excellent. And of course George KOs Moorer yada yada.

So the lineal was in line with the people. But your point is well taken that the best at that time was Lewis. The title does tend to gravitate to the best in time.

[Laligalaliga]

Thats kind of the point! Thats how most people feel. Would it suprise you to know that the most jealously guarded, oldest unbroken line, xenophobic, martial arts traditions... which are by and large in Japan...go by one simple rule? The line is broken when no successor carries the art for a generation. People fight over, debate and there is even a market for people to literally buy successorships. But in determining the most ancient arts? You have the Kojiki (record of ancient matters) which mentions the one indigenious art in Japan: Sumo Te...and after that the arts that have an unbroken line of successors called the KoRyu, the oldest of which is from the 1500s Taekenuchi ryo. It is that simple. That means that any art in this book has never been without a head instructor, to guide the art for generations.

In Boxing it is also simple: The guy who beats the best is the best. Mandatories and other such things are a way to "funnel" but at the end of the day, if you are looking at an unbroken succession of lineal champs, guys who, in an open division competed and beat the best out there with no restraints... You have simplicity and a solid, simple mechanism to determine who is champ. This extends many times to light heavies, cruisers and even middle weights. When the heavyweight division is weak, an excellent fighter at light heavy can take that title.

The key point is let the LHW dere to try. It takes lots of courage to try. It takes lots of courage and heart to unify putting you belt(s) on the line.
Be the guy, collect his belt(s), call the shots and defend the crown

That's the hallmark of a champion. One of the reasons I don't respect fury today is his inability to defend his titles. I don't rate him that high until he wins a belt and defend it.

[Jax teller]

A bad king swiftly loses his throne. You know about the Chuckies and Crommers. Why are you pretending like succession is always pretty and doesn't require the public's blessing?

Yes, they most certainly do need to make the best case for the throne. You know about succession crisis and you know about pretenders to a throne. I feel like you're playing stupid on purpose but maybe I misunderstood you.

------------

recognize what? Wait a minute I am lost as to why you believe I lack knowledge of events that are even easier to look up.

1.) Lineal is historical. I am not the man who coined the phrase nor first mentioned lineal as Sullivan's belt....you know this.

2.) I don't often speak to 20th century history because I assume you know it. It is very easy to look up. I help with what is difficult.


--------------

Condescending? I feel the same about you all.

Who here has clearly done some level of work to achieve an understanding beyond most? Who here posts a little bit more than the millionth repeat response reflecting the same god damn point the last post had?

I tell you guys you're broadcastor educated because you don't even know the vocabulary until ESPN uses the term. I know where you got you **** from. The easy, lazy, casual sources.

You were told what to think. You did not do research to attain an understand over 300 years of boxing history. I did.

You telling me I am wrong without having even taken a look into the history I thump is condescension bubba.

You willing disregarding the information makes you a Mark bubba.

-------------


If anyone had an interpretation of the information for me to consider I would consider, but, when all the **** you say comes from lazy sources, bubba, I done ****in' heard it. I too watch ESPN can you dig it?

It isn't that it comes from someone else. It's because all you are doing is proxy arguing some bull**** you got from a person whose job is to manipulate your interpretations....you silly billy.

You are just demonstrating knowledge without wisdom the majority of the time.

I am clearly talking about how the successor of a Monarch comes to be in relation to a HW Lineal coming to be. A Monarch doens't require an usurper or challenger to be succeeded it can simply get passed down especially in recent history. A lineal HW needs to be defeated to pass the title on aka "beat the man that beat the man".

I highly doubt we are going to see Prince Charles scrap with the Queen but that's the only way anyone is taking that title off Fury.

You can refer to you knowledge of history again and again but historical analogies only have a cetain amount of relevance to a conversation about current affairs anyway.