Page 2 of 2
Re: The Lineal History of the HW division.
Posted: 13 Nov 2018, 13:25
by Onetimeonly
HomicideHenry wrote: ↑13 Nov 2018, 12:42
Okay asshole, you're on the foe list so I don't have to ever be bothered seeing your effing prickish mouth again. I'm not wasting anymore lines on your worthless ass.
Fantastic, good luck with that honey bunny.
Re: The Lineal History of the HW division.
Posted: 13 Nov 2018, 16:18
by SteveO
HomicideHenry wrote: ↑13 Nov 2018, 12:51
BTW SteveO... Have you uncovered more fights for Jem Roche and others like Jewey Smith?
Wow, that was a while ago - you have a good memory!
Unfortunately, I've hit a brick wall. It's very, very difficult to find any further information on Jem and Jewey.
Re: The Lineal History of the HW division.
Posted: 13 Nov 2018, 16:23
by HomicideHenry
Lol, yeah that was quite a minute or two ago but it's one of the few things that stood out to me in all the years I been here cus for decades it was always assumed Roche just claimed to be the champion of Ireland and fought Burns in his debut--- then you cracked the code so to speak, as some university in Ireland had a ton of information on him that nobody previously had. Began with a 'W' I think. Anyways, good times. Back when this place was really reputable.
Re: The Lineal History of the HW division.
Posted: 17 Nov 2018, 18:22
by BitPlayer
Re: The Lineal History of the HW division.
Posted: 18 Nov 2018, 10:36
by APerno
HomicideHenry wrote: ↑10 Nov 2018, 05:48
This business has always been built upon the proposition of "to be the man you must beat the man", and if that no longer really matters--- then why does this business even exist anymore?
It defeats the purpose of the whole thing. The title from man to man is everything. These damned organizations have diluted not only the lineal title, but the uniqueness of the top dog in every division.
It's become professional wrestling. "Oh well because this guy has the Intercontinental title and the European title and the Interim title he's more important than the actual champion of the world." That's the mentality of fans today because they've been CONDITIONED (if not brainwashed) by the "powers that be" to accept this premise when HISTORICALLY that has never been the case.
The lineal status of Fury is reminiscent of the comeback of Joe Louis--- where the sport moved on and you had the BBBC recognizing Lee Savold as the world's champion and the NYSAC recognizing Ezzard Charles--- and even when Charles beat Louis, the BBBC still recognized Savold UNTIL Louis beat him, then the BBBC recognized Charles.
But if you read the record books, it will say, "Ezzard Charles wins the lineal title against Joe Louis." If you read the record books it will say, "Mike Tyson wins the lineal title against Michael Spinks." Same goes for Jackson Johnson when he beat Jeffries, and same for Lennox Lewis when he beat Shannon Briggs (who had beaten Foreman).
These kinds of arguments reminds me of the ridiculousness some months back of Lennox Lewis being described as the "unified" champion instead of as the "undisputed" champion--- because revisionists of history and protocol argued, "Well he didn't fight John Ruiz and he didn't win the WBO," etc.
The facts remains the facts. It does not matter what YOU or anyone else thinks about how things are done--- that's just the way it is. To say that Fury isn't the lineal (and true) champion just because someone else won a belt or two, is ignoring that Joe Frazier wasn't considered "the man" until he defeated Muhammad Ali in MSG in the FOTC.
The passage of time is meaningless. The pick up of titles is meaningless--- if the lineal champion who retired as champion returns to the ring. If Wilder beats Fury--- he's the lineal champion. Period. If Fury wins, then he's back to being the top dog in the division and AJ is number two. Period.
It does not matter if you disagree. That's the way this sport has always been, going back to Jack Broughton returning as lineal champion and losing to Jack Slack.
Never mind "unified" -- hell don't even abide "undisputed champion" because it still tries to denote the legitimacy of claimants. Think back to Tyson, they were calling him the "undisputed champion" even before he defeated Spinks. We need to ignore both terms and go back to plain old
Heavyweight Champion. And when a guy sits on the lineal title (like Fury) then we must taunt him by calling others "the uncrowned champion" so he knows he is being disrespected. But we must lose both unified and undisputed; both terms empower the bandits and gangsters (sanctioning bodies).
Re: The Lineal History of the HW division.
Posted: 18 Nov 2018, 10:47
by APerno
Onetimeonly wrote: ↑12 Nov 2018, 17:46
BoxBuzz wrote: ↑12 Nov 2018, 16:56
Well when it comes to the subjective, everyone is 100% correct, (in their own kingdom).
Lineal is nothing but opinion in this day and age. Very rare the top 2 guys ever fight. It's been irrelevant since the ibf became relevant. I don't know why people cling to it so desperately.
Yes you are correct, but that's where the rub lies, it is only because
you (and others) support the notion of claimant champions (sanctioning body champions) that the top two guys don't fight each other -- the top two guys would fight each other if
you would stop recognizing all the claimants. What we old time purist, self-righteous assholes are trying to say to you is: "you're the problem."
Re: The Lineal History of the HW division.
Posted: 18 Nov 2018, 10:48
by BoxBuzz
Yeah the spirit of this conversation is complicated. But to simplify........lineal really can't be disputed each time "lineage" can be established. I mean it's manifest, and measurable regardless of corruption, accidents/incidents (e.g. fan man etc).
But the GENUINE champion.....now that's somewhat subjective, and can be bantered about with good solid logical arguments.
Yep....they wanted to gift this subjective GENUINE title to Tyson way too soon, but he did eventually earn it.
I'm not arguing the "worth" of the lineal/linear title. I'm just trying to define it, so that whatever it's "worth" may or may not be, it can be recognized thusly. Like the sun that rises in the A.M. it simply "is". I suspect that HH values it more highly than I do.
Right now? Fury hasn't been gone as long as Louis was right? So those that want to hang on and say he's the man....I think that's a defensible position even if it's a minority position. But it's harder to say that Joshua or Wilder is the man. Though one of them may well be the current "best of the best".
Does that thinking past muster with folks?
Re: The Lineal History of the HW division.
Posted: 18 Nov 2018, 10:59
by APerno
BoxBuzz wrote: ↑18 Nov 2018, 10:48
Yeah the spirit of this conversation is complicated. But to simplify........lineal really can't be disputed each time "lineage" can be established. I mean it's manifest, and measurable regardless of corruption, accidents/incidents (e.g. fan man etc).
But the GENUINE champion.....now that's somewhat subjective, and can be bantered about with good solid logical arguments.
Yep....they wanted to gift this subjective GENUINE title to Tyson way too soon, but he did eventually earn it.
I'm not arguing the "worth" of the lineal/linear title. I'm just trying to define it, so that whatever it's "worth" may or may not be, it can be recognized thusly. Like the sun that rises in the A.M. it simply "is". I suspect that HH values it more highly than I do.
Right now? Fury hasn't been gone as long as Louis was right? So those that want to hang on and say he's the man....I think that's a defensible position even if it's a minority position. But it's harder to say that Joshua or Wilder is the man. Though one of them may well be the current "best of the best".
Does that thinking past muster with folks?
It is obvious I am pro lineal champ but no doubt there are all kinds of problems with it: do we throw out Marvin Hart and Tommy Burns? What about Schmeling and Patterson, we base their claim on announced retirements, OK, but then Jeffries, Louis and Ali come along and screw us over by announcing retirement and then returning. Even the man, "who beats, the man" argument is full of holes.
But as Anglo Dundee always said: "Controversy, controversy, it's great for the game."
Re: The Lineal History of the HW division.
Posted: 18 Nov 2018, 19:03
by Onetimeonly
APerno wrote: ↑18 Nov 2018, 10:47
Onetimeonly wrote: ↑12 Nov 2018, 17:46
BoxBuzz wrote: ↑12 Nov 2018, 16:56
Well when it comes to the subjective, everyone is 100% correct, (in their own kingdom).
Lineal is nothing but opinion in this day and age. Very rare the top 2 guys ever fight. It's been irrelevant since the ibf became relevant. I don't know why people cling to it so desperately.
Yes you are correct, but that's where the rub lies, it is only because
you (and others) support the notion of claimant champions (sanctioning body champions) that the top two guys don't fight each other -- the top two guys would fight each other if
you would stop recognizing all the claimants. What we old time purist, self-righteous assholes are trying to say to you is: "you're the problem."
I couldn't begin to name which belt any of the guys have now. No problem here, they're just more important(to the fighters) than some gumball machine belt from a magazine or a mythical title that really was nothing when it meant something. You were just the champion. Lineal was a great way to track the champions. I wish at least half of the blowhard snobs clinging to it would stop calling it linear.
Re: The Lineal History of the HW division.
Posted: 18 Nov 2018, 19:17
by APerno
Onetimeonly wrote: ↑18 Nov 2018, 19:03
APerno wrote: ↑18 Nov 2018, 10:47
Onetimeonly wrote: ↑12 Nov 2018, 17:46
Lineal is nothing but opinion in this day and age. Very rare the top 2 guys ever fight. It's been irrelevant since the ibf became relevant. I don't know why people cling to it so desperately.
Yes you are correct, but that's where the rub lies, it is only because
you (and others) support the notion of claimant champions (sanctioning body champions) that the top two guys don't fight each other -- the top two guys would fight each other if
you would stop recognizing all the claimants. What we old time purist, self-righteous assholes are trying to say to you is: "you're the problem."
I couldn't begin to name which belt any of the guys have now. No problem here, they're just more important(to the fighters) than some gumball machine belt from a magazine or a mythical title that really was nothing when it meant something. You were just the champion. Lineal was a great way to track the champions. I wish at least half of the blowhard snobs clinging to it would stop calling it linear.
It is a shame that there is no respect any longer for elimination fights (as there once was) I blame TV who insist that every fight be a title fight or they won't buy it. It is a combination of the sanctioning bodies (who profit from sanctioning title fights) and television who won't respect a non-title fight.
As long as there are four or five belts available in a weight-class it is a rare day when the top two fighters will meet; and I guess you can't blame them.
Re: The Lineal History of the HW division.
Posted: 19 Nov 2018, 02:53
by Onetimeonly
It's not their fault. Top boxers have been gradually over paid to the point that it's crushed the sport in America. Booming elsewhere, but it never will be again here. Can't me mad at the fighters, it's the casinos and HBO that started paying big money for shitty fights.