lets clarify the power of the lineal...

[QueensburyRules]

There is this thing known as "time". It progresses in one direction only. We hadn't already seen Tucker lose to Tyson when Spinks decided to fight Cooney instead of Tucker, because Tucker hadn't yet fought Tyson at that point in time. So why TF are you talking about Tyson vs Tucker 2?

And please, stop with this nonsense about "the fans" deciding who fights who for world titles.

The fans vs the sanctioning bodies is a false dichotomy. As Marchegiano has pointed out several times in this lineal discussion .. the sanctioning bodies only exist because the sport and the fans needed them. Without the sanctioning bodies, the fans would have to rely on fighters and promoters telling them who to recognise as champions.

- - Didn't used to be sanctioning bodies when the people decided to attend illegal fights. A few illegal Blowhards got together to form an entity with rules and rest is history.

All the Lineal apings FAIL massively by not understanding boxing is the red light district of sports no better than pros titu tion.

[kafkod]

Ah! OK you are correct Tyson fought Tucker two months later.

Which makes me ask, How did Tucker become 'champion.' Did the IBF point at him and declare him champion?

He fought the number 2 contender

[kafkod]

You think that the NYSAC (1920) and the NBA (1931) came into existence because the fans wanted them?

Part of the evolution of the sport, obviously

[Marchegiano]

Pep wants to be able to rely on fan consensus for who is and is not champion but refuses consensus for who is and is not authority.

There's a few members here I'd classify as having done a little bit of research, learned the long passed down narratives and A-B Mentalities, and now thinks they knows something. Gnash gnarled teeth while you hold my tea brah. I don't even need narrative for this one
�br />






There was no poll of fans nor the term lineal champion when John L was crowned. Any of the four times he was crowned. Pep is fully aware. Knows it's a post-dated attribution.

Seemingly consensus is what drives everything prior or alternative to bodies and if one can use consensus for attribution the thing being attributed need only make logical sense. Fact is John L never heard the term lineal champion as lineal champion. Fact. But he can be attributed can't he? He is, isn't he? Is it the truth, or a logical fallacy? Well it's both isn't it? It is true John L possesses all the attributes claimed of him. Simply consensus champion and consensus first QB champion.

What backs this consensus without a census?

Nothing but numbers of account picked from sources by historians I've already proven are lazy liars.

What backs the move from LPR to QB as the pro sport? Same.



Cute then, isn't it, this man would challenge the idea the fans would rather bodies, knowing the popularity of the NYSAC and NBA, than illegal ******** den fights.



You can cite consensus for who the champion is, when the title starts, why gloves are used, but don't you dare use the same thing to explain why the bodies matter in historical context Silly.



I shouldn't need anything more than the boom in numbers in the audience everyone here knows about to validate the bodies coming by fan approval not begrudged acceptance but don't worry I am sure there's some ****** reason to not accept this and I'll be piling narrative in chronological order soon enough.

[billeau2]

That's not what the idea of lineages and lineal champions is all about. The notion that there is one champion, who could beat all the others, head-to-head ... that's a different matter altogether. There are lineages and lineal champions in every division, not just HW.

You have no concept of history...Historically the heavyweight was considered the best... Again not in any so called official capacity... In fact the other divisions have a lot more competitive conditions... But it is how fans traditionally viewed the situation which you discount at every turn. In Thailand the heavyweight Thai fighters are considered a mere footnote to the champ who usually weighs in at around 150 give, or take... It is a historical fact... It does not change the title structure and how it is administered by agencies...

I thought you were a lot smarter... wasting my time here. How foolish can you be?

[billeau2]

Retirement becomes the issues and always has because there is no consistency in post retirement. It is why Nat made up some things and why Ring continued to make up new stipulations after him. Post Lennox, Post Ali, Post Marciano, Post Louis, Post Tunney, Post Corbett, Post Mace, Post King, Post Sayer, Post Cribb, it all looks different. There's a handful of sames but they don't follow one another. Cribb, Jackson, and Figg all handled their retirements similarly but nothing like Corbett, Ward, and Fury. None of those names are chronological contemporaries or even reasonably close.

However, you are sly and seem aware this is more philosophical and semantics than denial of anyone's version of lineal.

So let's drop and the vehicle and speak to the underlying issue:

For as much criticism of historians, especially Nat, I give, I have to keep in mind the plausibility and likelihood I am critical out of ignorance rather than being knowledgeable enough to criticize.

History has many keepers and those styles in story telling found in the storytellers are what ultimately dictate their reach and title with audiences

Nat is a historian. That is the title he's been given. I do not ever see Nat referred to as a chronicler.

I think my work speaks for itself. "Historian" only fits for lack of a better term. Like how the boxing fan refers to "power" when by context it is clear they mean force.

I am a chronicler. As in I list factual events in chronological order. I may be alone in that title in boxing but that is what i have done and that is a starkly different philosophy toward history.

That is to say by definition of the gig a historian interprets history for their reader and rationalizes their interpretations with context. Historians who go along with his narrative of best claim and such simply agree with the interpretation and usually have their own to add to his rather than detract from it.

By the nature of chronicling my work opposes their own.

So, yeah, it's real, and it is real history, and like any history it is through the lens of the teller, Fleischer this time. Since that lens simply does not follow the events as they happened it may be real history but so Apollo boxing Phorbas at the Head of Oak. Real history full of fantasy.


I have no problem with lineal as through nat or an alternative lineal, I recognize all champions and just log them where they are so a lineal list by any lens is really just some fella saying "These are the real champions"

Which is fine, idc, but really not my thing. Not my philosophy for history should be handled.

I think it is much easier to resolve... History is not the sum total of historians, nor is it one historians take. I hear you starting to make a distinction regarding what Nat says and what is... If this is so that is a great step imo. I can call my pubes the lineal, does not make it so. What Nat did probably was take some truth and some BS and make a narrative.

History is there to point out a lot of things not just to try to claim a dominant narrative. A failure to understand things like how the heavyweight champ was percieved is misleading and very much tied to the lineal, or we can agree to disagree on that. The heavyweght champ was known as the best in all the world... and he was considered absolute with respect to fans, and boxing. Is this true? well, existentially it is! The fact that the haevyweight champ was the biggest meant he could probably beat the reigning other weight classes... Or, those in those classes would challenge him.

The lineal comes from this declaration and situation. Does not mean that when experts weight in on the best fighters, none are really heavyweights, nor does it affect the need to dictate through other means who the champs are... Which is an oximoron perpetuated by moronic alphabet soups. The lineal as Nat saw it is not the lineal anymore than the heavyweight champ was "better" pound for pound" than other champs.

And Bud I am being sneaky here!!! I know how much you also detest the pound for pound thang.

[billeau2]

BabeRuth

Jack Dempsey

Joe Dimaggio

Muhammed Ali

Ok look at those three names above. Now considr the following urban legend: The structure of this legend is always the same: When retold it uses any of the above names... There is a parade taking place in England and some Americans, usually described as Soldgers, in the way when the Queen's Guard, not known for their charming social skills, pushes through yelling "Make way for the Queen" (Usually the story has a Queen not a King)... Where upon a gilted American says "Fooey! the Queen!" And it is that point that a member of the Guard states: "Oh yeah well Fooey ____________ insert one of the names above.

What this story tells us is historical. Dempsey and Ruth were the first superstars. they became known everywhere. The Heavyweight champ of the world was undisputed, and a singular honor attained and protected by the principles of the lineal. Until such time the champ was beaten, he was the best. This was the very basis for the designation as "champion!" Historically we know that the champ was considered the heavyweight champ because, he was the biggest and baddest, or, a smaller man would show him otherwise in the ring and become the baddest.

I don't care what Nat Fletcher did... I do not care when ignorance sweeps and members claim there is no such thing as the lineal... Historically the very basis of having a champ i Western Boxing is based on the lineal! It is written in the history of the champ! Dempsey cemented it but the concept was inchoate way before Jack ever became one of the first modern superstars... Yes modern!! fer chrissakes, Kant spoke to us in the 1700's and was cnsidered our first modern philosopher!

[Willie Pep 229]

I think it is much easier to resolve... History is not the sum total of historians, nor is it one historians take. I hear you starting to make a distinction regarding what Nat says and what is... If this is so that is a great step imo. I can call my pubes the lineal, does not make it so. What Nat did probably was take some truth and some BS and make a narrative.

History is there to point out a lot of things not just to try to claim a dominant narrative. A failure to understand things like how the heavyweight champ was percieved is misleading and very much tied to the lineal, or we can agree to disagree on that. The heavyweght champ was known as the best in all the world... and he was considered absolute with respect to fans, and boxing. Is this true? well, existentially it is! The fact that the haevyweight champ was the biggest meant he could probably beat the reigning other weight classes... Or, those in those classes would challenge him.

The lineal comes from this declaration and situation. Does not mean that when experts weight in on the best fighters, none are really heavyweights, nor does it affect the need to dictate through other means who the champs are... Which is an oximoron perpetuated by moronic alphabet soups. The lineal as Nat saw it is not the lineal anymore than the heavyweight champ was "better" pound for pound" than other champs.

And Bud I am being sneaky here!!! I know how much you also detest the pound for pound thang.

P4P was created by sports writers to find a way to praise a smaller fighter's prowess. It was just a literary device.

It got legs under it and ran wild. The media turned it into an unofficial official ranking.

It is probably the silliest of all the rankings because it can never rise above mere opinion.

It never should have morphed into what it is today.

[billeau2]

P4P was created by sports writers to find a way to praise a smaller fighter's prowess. It was just a literary device.

It got legs under it and ran wild. The media turned it into an unofficial official ranking.

It is probably the silliest of all the rankings because it can never rise above mere opinion.

It never should have morphed into what it is today.

I agree with you. And these things come up a lot... IMO put punch stat numbers in the same category. So I girl punch you in the arm ten times... And people look at Olympic boxing which at times, for all intensive purposes, encourages perfect girl punches, while not considering damage and effect... I know they have to, just saying lol.

Naturally it is easy for an enterprising critic to claim the lineal is of the same character... Just like people ASSUME that combatives, which are hybrids of combat and sports, follow the same trajectory as sports... "Football players are better, must be the same for boxers" right? That is why we need fans who understand history and when a concept is legit, or simply a way to attract attention.

It is really bad Pep! ( Nine out of ten martial arts historians contend that in Chinese Martial arts the basic distinction is external/internal... These arts were never characterised this way except once in a minor text, but it stuck... never mind that is was a false dichotomy.

[billeau2]

Pep wants to be able to rely on fan consensus for who is and is not champion but refuses consensus for who is and is not authority.

There's a few members here I'd classify as having done a little bit of research, learned the long passed down narratives and A-B Mentalities, and now thinks they knows something. Gnash gnarled teeth while you hold my tea brah. I don't even need narrative for this one
?br />






There was no poll of fans nor the term lineal champion when John L was crowned. Any of the four times he was crowned. Pep is fully aware. Knows it's a post-dated attribution.

Seemingly consensus is what drives everything prior or alternative to bodies and if one can use consensus for attribution the thing being attributed need only make logical sense. Fact is John L never heard the term lineal champion as lineal champion. Fact. But he can be attributed can't he? He is, isn't he? Is it the truth, or a logical fallacy? Well it's both isn't it? It is true John L possesses all the attributes claimed of him. Simply consensus champion and consensus first QB champion.

What backs this consensus without a census?

Nothing but numbers of account picked from sources by historians I've already proven are lazy liars.

What backs the move from LPR to QB as the pro sport? Same.



Cute then, isn't it, this man would challenge the idea the fans would rather bodies, knowing the popularity of the NYSAC and NBA, than illegal ******** den fights.



You can cite consensus for who the champion is, when the title starts, why gloves are used, but don't you dare use the same thing to explain why the bodies matter in historical context Silly.



I shouldn't need anything more than the boom in numbers in the audience everyone here knows about to validate the bodies coming by fan approval not begrudged acceptance but don't worry I am sure there's some ****** reason to not accept this and I'll be piling narrative in chronological order soon enough.

Why does it have to be mentioned at all? And how does mentioning something make it legitimate? One key difference is: When someone says Sullivan was the best and could only lose that honor by being beat no one would raise an eyebrow, it is in the genes... When I designate some inferior fighter as another champ, who gains such through my authority, it does not make sense. Consensus speaks for itself at times... And just because someone claims to manufacture a belt does not make it so. part of the power of the lineal is that it works automatically and does not need a voice other than the fans declaring whom the champ is.

Even the dumbest fans generally know who the heavyweight champ of the world is... as opposed to any alphabet champs, etc... It does not even make logical sense to have champions in one weight division. There should be a best!