BoxRec

barry wrote:Well James I have been asked to write for several different websites, of which The Cyber Boxing Zone is the only site that I write for because unlike most others, the CBZ has a true feel for boxing tradition and what is right and wrong with boxing! As to you writing for max boxing, why don't you get some of the credible writers like Thomas Gerbasi, Michale Katz, Doug Fischer or Steve Kim and see who's logic of a true world champion they choose, your belief, or mine, or would you rather that I ask them for you! Also, lets see how many historians that you can find that would back up your opinion of what we have been discussing, or my opinion! I'll ask some of the historians that I collaborate with from the IBRO and CBZ and you can ask whoever!

As to being the know all, end all of boxing, I've never said that I was, just you and some of your buddies proclaim that after I make you look like the idiots that you are because you can't do anything other than insults, and I can't help what you, or someone else says! James, you and a few others are very outspoken in your opinions, more so than me, but when someone questions your opinion, or shows it for the bollux that it really is, well you cannot handle that and then resort to name calling and insults which shows just how mature you really are! After all, I don't resort to name calling until you or someone else does, but it's not even necessary in this post to you, because you've done all of the work yourself! You can say all you want about me, but I'm certainly no hypocrite like you and some other of your buddies! I'm sorry that I wounded your fragile little ego and hope in the future that your panties don't get to wrinkled when someone challenges your opinions!

I speak to Thomas Gerbasi on a regular basis. I can guarantee that he doesn't think that beating Ali truly validated Holmes reign. The linear title is fine in an ideal world, but we don't live in an ideal world.

Holmes may have validated his reign in the eyes of some by beating Ali, but it was far from a career defining performance, Ali was an ill and spent old man who was raddled from taking diuretics yet according to your flawed logic, without beating him, Holmes would never have been the man, which is clearly just clinging to your own rigid definition in the face of obviously conflicting

Say what you like, but you are a pompous pudendum.

>>>>>I can guarantee that he doesn't think that beating Ali truly validated Holmes reign<<<<<

Like I already said get proof that Gerbasi would agree with you and your view of how a true world boxing champion is made, especially using Ali-Holmes as an example! Go ahead "Mr. Boxing," and if you prove me wrong by having several credible people in the boxing media who share your opinion then I will gladly apologize and beg for your forgiveness!


>>>>Say what you like, but you are a pompous pudendum.<<<<
Again with the insults! Well that's understandable, as well as predictable, when your up against someone that is smarter than you are!

Mate, I've dropped turds smarter than you, don't kid yourself. If endlessly repeating the same line about the 'linear champ' is a mark of intelligence then yes, you would be a fornicating genius. Sadly it isn't.

I really can't be arsed bothering Tom about a no-mark like you. He's got better things to do. However, I may write an article on the subject, it will be interesting to see how many people agree with your ludicrous contention that Holmes beating Ali was the validation of his tenure as champion.

I knew you wouldn't want to bother anyone, all talk, but I don't blame you because deep down you know I'm right about this topic, you just don't have the decency, or respectability to admit when you are wrong!

I may write an article as well, which will certainly point out all of the bullshit as well as weaknesses and deceit in what it means to be a true world boxing champion! Hell, you probably even think that Clinton Woods is a legitimate as well as true world champion!

Using the linear basis as the sole methodolgy for determining a true world champion at a given weight is an outmoded tool. We live in a world of fragmented belts and fewer unification fights, to use a system that worked well in different times now produces either utterly bizarre results (Shannon Briggs as world heavyweight champion anyone?) or keeps a weight as vacant despite the fact a fighter is clearly dominanting his era (e.g Hopkins).

I love the term "Boxing Historian" - often those who use it do it as a label of pomposity to set themselves up as better than us humble fans.

Incidentally, how can you not recognise Clinton Woods as a legitimate world champion. I don't think he is the best in the world but won the IBF belt because their champion chose to vacate. Last time I checked, despite the best efforts of Bob Lee, the IBF was still a legimate organisation.

Yes indeed. Or had Axel Schulz actually gotten the decision against Foreman, he would have been linear champ. However, was he the best Heavyweight in the world at that time, was he fornicate! Of course according to the gospel according to 'boxing historian' and prize fuckwit Barry, he would have been 'the man.'

As for Woods, he is a legitimate belt holder, but he is not the man at the weight, to do that he will have to beat Johnson, although Johnson isn't the linear champion due to some chicanery years ago involving Rochiggiani, neither was Jones Jr for that same reason. Dariusz Michaelszewski was linear champ, so that now makes Zsolt Erdei linear champ, is he the best, unlikely, was Gonzales, definetly not as he got his ass whupped by Jones.

Until such time as the sanctioning bodies are not a factor, and we are using only one belt to determine who our champions are, the linear title argument is, as Loynsey put it an 'outmoded methodology.' I may have to use that line.

jamesmcdonnell wrote: 'outmoded methodology.' .

My ex-wife cited that as a reason for divorce

FWIW - I am with J McD. trying to trace linear champs these days is like trying to trace varicose veins in a 90yr old

>>>>I love the term "Boxing Historian" - often those who use it do it as a label of pomposity to set themselves up as better than us humble fans. <<<<

Completely untrue! A boxing historian, as I see it, is someone that studies the history of boxing! Boxing history and the research of it is a passion for a boxing historian! I'm a boxing historian/student, which is pretty much what everyone is because you can never learn everything and you can certainly learn something new everyday, I know I do. I'm far from being one of the top historians, but in time I will be! There is so much that I don't know about boxing history, but I have the want to learn! What I do know now I am confident in and sometimes I may be wrong and when I am, I'll gladly say so, because one of my objectives in boxing research is to correct as much as I can, some of the incorrect, supposed facts, that have been passed down through the years!

Clinton Woods won the title that Glen Johnson was stripped of because he chose to fight the best, or supposed best in the division, therefore another bogus world champion has been crowned! Which isn't an argument against Woods, it's an argument against the IBF, or any of the other bullshit organizations that are killing boxing! It's not the only thing killing boxing, but all of the organizations are at the very top of the ladder and if things don't change in the near future, then boxing is going to be viewed as ridiculous as wrestling is!

Right, but that's how things are, and that's reality, it's the world we live in, it's no good hankering after an era that has passed and applying an outdated criteria which was imperfect even with one belt on the line, and which is even more so with 3-4 'legit' world titles.

Nobody here thinks Woods is the best in the world, although the quality of his performance suggests that he may go on to do some good things in the division. I'm sure we are all well aware of how he came about the belt and the fact it was down to the greed of the sanctiong bodies who preferred to have their titles split so they make more money.

Answer me this, who is 'the man' in the light heavyweight division?

According to your Linear title principles it's almost impossible to determine as at one point in time there were several fighters with a claim to the linear title.

You're coming across all modest now, but at various points you've been giving it the big one about how I 'couldn't hope to touch' your knowledge of world and even British boxing. You then set about Bubi, slinging insults around, and then come across all wounded when you get some in return.

>>>>Answer me this, who is 'the man' in the light heavyweight division?<<<<

I'd have to say Zsolt Erdei! Because DM had defeated Virgil Hill to unify the titles and Gonzalez beat DM and Erdei beat Gonzalez!


>>>>According to your Linear title principles it's almost impossible to determine as at one point in time there were several fighters with a claim to the linear title.<<<<<

True, but due to the fighters facing one another it was answered. The Jr. Featherweight division has not had a true, unified champion since Wilfredo Gomez and a lot of divisions are sometimes alike unless the best decide to fight each other!

>>>>You're coming across all modest now, but at various points you've been giving it the big one about how I 'couldn't hope to touch' your knowledge of world and even British boxing.<<<<

That was several weeks ago from an argument that you not only started, but was wrong about as you rightfully apologized to me and I did as well!

>>>>You then set about Bubi, slinging insults around, and then come across all wounded when you get some in return.<<<<

Again, I did not initiate the insults, or the argument, bubi did, but J and yourself quickly jumped into the argument on bubi's side after I went after him with no remorse and then it only took a couple of fornicate offs for J to go bezerk with personal insults and this most recent argument with you and I, it's all good for you to say disrespectful things about me and how I view boxing, but when I return it back to you, you went straight for the personal insults and then make up shit like I think I know it all, or that I feel I am superior to everyone when it pertains to boxing, which is complete bullshit!

Right, so do you think Erdei is the best fighter in the division?

The truth is there is no single identifiable Linear champ in LH, you could argue either Johnson or Erdei, depending which bit of the lineage you think is most valid.

It's rather like tracing the family tree of a notorious philanderer with endless bastard sons in some divisions, which makes it a pointless exercise. Rather than having disputes about who the lineal champ is, people should direct their energy

The featherweight division may not have a linear champ, but you have to consider either Pacquaio or Marquez to be the top man, for me it's the latter, for other the former. Barrera if he comes back to beat Pacquaio will be the man as far as I am concerned. However, a fight between Marquez and Barrera would then have to be staged to really sort it out.

I don't tend to erupt into an avalanche of expletives, but when someone comes on and starts getting high and mighty with me, and starts spouting about how 'most historians' think this or that, as if they are the members of some sort of elite star chamber of boxing historians who know best, whilst I am just a poor misguided mere mortal, not in the know, then I tend to give it pretty short shrift.

Whether you like it or not that is how it came across, and it's not just me who thinks so, so draw your own conclusions about that. As for apologising, yes I did, however on looking back at your posts, I discovered I was right all along. In the interests of not boring everyone shitless I let it go, but now I feel it prudent to bring it up again to point out to you your high-handedness.

Of course Erdei isn't the best! It isn't a difficult task to go about determining who the lineal/linear champions are, as the CBZ has it already fixed out on the website!

I was speaking of the Jr. Feather with Gomes. The featherweight would have to be Pacquaio, who beat Barrera, who beat Hamed, who had unified all of the belts!


>>>>I don't tend to erupt into an avalanche of expletives, but when someone comes on and starts getting high and mighty with me, and starts spouting about how 'most historians' think this or that, as if they are the members of some sort of elite star chamber of boxing historians who know best, whilst I am just a poor misguided mere mortal, not in the know, then I tend to give it pretty short shrift.<<<<

I only responded to you as you responded to me, only with a lot less insults! I'm not spouting about "most historians" because as I have laid out what makes a true champion that is exactly the same belief of some of the very best historians in the world and I'm not saying that because I think I am all high and mighty, it's just a fact! Most of the top historians in the world are in the IBRO, which I have been a member of for around four, maybe five years now and I correspond daily with many, so when I say "most historians" I am not just spouting off, or yapping and I don't consider myself to be any more special than anyone else, although I do know more about boxing and boxing history than most people who watch the sport, I consider myslef to be a novice compared to some of the other historians. Like I said before, I am very confident in what I know, but I don't try to pretend like I am superior to anyone! I treat people exactly how they treat me, which is all anyone can do!

>>>>Whether you like it or not that is how it came across, and it's not just me who thinks so, so draw your own conclusions about that.<<<<

Well everyone can garner their own opinion, which makes no difference to me, but I will always stand up for myself and if someone is rude, or insults me, then I sure as hell will be the same way to them! Like I already said, I treat others exactly as they treat me and if I am wrong I don't care to admit it, and I don't care to apologize, but I will not make any apologies for responding likewise!

barry wrote:Goz,
All I need to say to you is look at your name!

Gosh that put me in my place.

How old are you Barry? You act like a 14 year old brat.

33, but you have no right to call anyone childish with how your first response was presented!

Although with what most are saying about the futility of trying to trace linear champions it is fun to do it, especially with the Heavyweights.

And I actually did enjoy Lennox Lewis's win over Shannon Briggs for exactly that reason, he became the linear champ. Which was why I resented this general assumption in many quarters that Evander Holyfield was the champion when he fought Lewis.

Yes, the fight which really cemented Lewis' position was his win over Holyfield, or really his first fight, which pretty much confirmed to those who wondered, that he was the best heavyweight in the world.

barry wrote:Of course Erdei isn't the best! It isn't a difficult task to go about determining who the lineal/linear champions are, as the CBZ has it already fixed out on the website!

I was speaking of the Jr. Feather with Gomes. The featherweight would have to be Pacquaio, who beat Barrera, who beat Hamed, who had unified all of the belts!


>>>>I don't tend to erupt into an avalanche of expletives, but when someone comes on and starts getting high and mighty with me, and starts spouting about how 'most historians' think this or that, as if they are the members of some sort of elite star chamber of boxing historians who know best, whilst I am just a poor misguided mere mortal, not in the know, then I tend to give it pretty short shrift.<<<<

I only responded to you as you responded to me, only with a lot less insults! I'm not spouting about "most historians" because as I have laid out what makes a true champion that is exactly the same belief of some of the very best historians in the world and I'm not saying that because I think I am all high and mighty, it's just a fact! Most of the top historians in the world are in the IBRO, which I have been a member of for around four, maybe five years now and I correspond daily with many, so when I say "most historians" I am not just spouting off, or yapping and I don't consider myself to be any more special than anyone else, although I do know more about boxing and boxing history than most people who watch the sport, I consider myslef to be a novice compared to some of the other historians. Like I said before, I am very confident in what I know, but I don't try to pretend like I am superior to anyone! I treat people exactly how they treat me, which is all anyone can do!

>>>>Whether you like it or not that is how it came across, and it's not just me who thinks so, so draw your own conclusions about that.<<<<

Well everyone can garner their own opinion, which makes no difference to me, but I will always stand up for myself and if someone is rude, or insults me, then I sure as hell will be the same way to them! Like I already said, I treat others exactly as they treat me and if I am wrong I don't care to admit it, and I don't care to apologize, but I will not make any apologies for responding likewise!

Most historians, by the nature of the pursuit, are guilty of living in the past. I think boxing historians are no different in this respect, in that many, though certainly not all, believe the past to be the receptacle of all things good, and that the modern era is a shallow imitation of a glorious past.

Whilst of course boxing faces a multitude of self-made problems which are most manifest in the actions of the sanctioning bodies, their greed and their antics, this is by no means an entirely modern phenomena.

In the barenknuckle era, you had Tom Molyneaux I think it was, who was so badly beaten by members of the crowd in his bout with Cribb I think, that he was unable to fight on, as he had broken fingers and ribs.

Look at Jack Dempsey, whose tenure as champion was no doubt extended by the fact he was allowed to defend the title less than once a year and fought two 10 rounders for the title. The man was so popular they just ignored the rulebook. The colour line was perhaps the most flagrant unwritten regulation which definetly diluted the quality of champions in many divisions.

Then there's the IBO and the Mob, who during the 50's had an incredible stranglehold over the sport. Many fighters never even got their chance to fight for a world title in their best weight, Ezzard Charles was the best light heavyweight in the word, yet never got to fight for the title, despite beating all the top contenders and even champions in non title fights. That makes something of a mockery of the validity of the linear title theory, because Charles whupped eventual champ Moore three times, but never got a look in.

The sport has a hell of a lot of problems, and always has, and it all in reality stems from the same place, the fact that boxing is run by promoters with the help of sanctioning bodies who exist only as money making vehicles for the old boys network who run boxing. Thus it has always been, and thus it will probably always remain.

Whilst other sports have globalised and organised themselves, increasing their popularity and largely rooting out corruption and bad administrations, boxing has continued along the same route, shrinking in popularity until it has virtually dissapeared from the screen aside from subscription only services at least in the US and UK.