crusader wrote:
If a discussion is at least partially about the factuality of something then whether it's true obviously comes into play, and if you know what true means you should realise that you've been debating whether a certain claim is true for the last few pages.
'The champion/true champion/etc.' are simply constructs with no official standards as to how one goes about acquiring those labels. There is no 'THE champion' sanctioning body which formally awards that label to only one fighter per division based on a codified set of guidelines, and as this thread highlights there is much debate about what makes someone the legitimate champion of a division, reflective of the lack of clear convention on the matter.
Lineage, number of successful title defenses, ranking in a set of objective computer-based rankings, etc. are all just competing standards that people can use to decide who they feel THE champ of a division is, however they define that generally vague term. I can see the merits of going by lineage and I don't have a major issue with that as long as people don't act like that makes a lineal champ any more credible at the weight (and a non-lineal champ any less credible at the weight) than their quality of opponent and performance merit.
Being lineal champion is ultimately the product of winning a bout against the current lineal champion---reducing the championship to one fight. If Gabe Rosado beat Canelo Alvarez he would be the lineal champion at MW based on that single win, even though got torn up by GGG, recently beaten up and stopped by someone GGG outclassed, dropped and held to a draw by someone GGG stopped in 8, beaten loads of other times, would arguably have no other wins over top 10 fighters, and so on. He then would then have no obligations as champion, and would never lose his championship status even if he fought nothing but utter crap for the remainder of his career.
And of course Canelo
is the lineal MW champion even though he's only fought one guy who was campaigning as a MW at the time.
In a previous post I gave several reasons supporting an alternative, and one can easily point to examples of lineal champion not fighting the most dangerous fighter in their division, which shouldn't be a surprise considering that lineal championships come with zero obligations for title defenses. Adonis Stevenson can win the lineal title by stopping Chad Dawson, then defend it against people like Tommy Karpency and a past it, blown up Sakio Bika while others fight superior opposition. Miguel Cotto can make it clear that he has no obligation to fight GGG and hint at dropping the WBC belt instead of facing him, he can instead look up to GGG's leftovers, he can require fighters to move down to weights that don't suit them, he can defend against people who have never fought a career MW, and so on.
To repeat myself, 'The champion/true champion/etc.' are simply constructs with no official standards as to how one goes about acquiring those labels. There is no 'THE champion' sanctioning body which formally awards that label to only one fighter per division based on a codified set of guidelines, and as this thread highlights there is much debate about what makes someone the legitimate champion of a division, reflective of the lack of clear convention on the matter.
If you know what the words mean and believe that you're using them in context you sure have an odd way of expressing yourself. Concrete and arbitrary are by no means conflicting terms, yet you've contrasted them as if they were:
Why immediately follow up a sentence in which you seem to imply that number of defences isn't concrete with 'It's clearly arbitrary? Sentence placement is a major factor in expressing meaning, and if people have comprehension issues with your arguments it's no wonder why!
By the way, if you were implying that number of defenses isn't concrete (and why else state that you have no idea why someone would consider it concrete?) I see that you've taken it back. After all, on the second page you posted that "Factual is concrete", hence if you consider number of defenses facutal you must consider it concrete.
Maybe you're slowly getting there.
I don't think inferiority comes into it. One can lack any sense of being inferior yet still point out that they find it laughable when someone calls others obtuse, even though that person continually fails to grasp the nuances of the discussion and struggles to keep their terms straight.
In fact, I'd think that many of the most confident, self-assured people would think so highly of themselves that they'd take issue with someone implying that they're being obtuse.
There we go with your word salad again
Not only did you explicitly use the word 'better', when I raised the analogous Rosado counterexample and used the
same term for the sake of consistency with your example, you responded by suggesting that who is champ isn't a matter of who is better:
Hmmmmmm......now why would you think that I was discussing who is better? Doesn't say much for your comprehension skills.
Even though we seem to be going in circles......Estoy listo para más Taki
Actually the discussion was, and possibly still is, about factuality and relevance. Something factual and irrelevant can be arbitrary.
Isn't 'true' subjective?
Whilst we might be able to argue the merits of any claim Alvarez or Golovkin -- or people on their behalf -- might make to them being 'the best' middleweight fighter. Any claim to be the ONLY champion (or as must be the case, the only champion that counts) requires something more than an opinion.
Now whilst Alvarez can point to the FACT he is lineal champion. Golovkin, or rather those on his behalf, has no such FACT to fall back on.
Again, I think you're confusing 'who is better' with 'who is champion'. Ranking, computer based or otherwise, ranks fighters in order of merit based on past performance(s) -- in an attempt to determine which fighter is potentially the BEST.
Number of 'successful defences' would rank fighters in a numerical order based on who has successfully fought the most times since winning a belt -- which is relevant to neither the point I've been making, or the one you've been mistaking it for.
A lineal championship is passed on from one fighter to another. Simple, factual, and not at all subjective.
A lineal, or any other championship for that matter, is not a measure of who is best. A championship is a real factual thing. Even a lineal championship -- since we can trace the origins through past results. For example; Fighter A is the lineal champion. Fighter B beats fighter A to become the champion. Then fighter C beats fighter B, and fighter A beats fighter C. We can EASILY trace who is champion, but who is best? Best and champion are not necessarily mutually inclusive.
Absolutely none of the arguments you're making change the FACT of Alvarez's lineal championship. It absolutely comes with no obligations. That said since Alvarez won it in his last fight it's a little soon to be casting aspersions on his willingness to fight all-comers.
So something needs a set of official standards and a sanctioning body to be factual? It's an interesting, if poorly thought out idea, I'll grant you. But it's irrelevant. Is anyone disputing Alvarez being the lineal champion?
What was suggested is that GGG is the ONLY champion at middleweight. ONLY. ONLY. ONLY. My argument is that to have even a reasonable claim to be the ONLY champion at any given weight a fighter should at the very least be either lineal champion, or undisputed champion. These are traceable, factual things. Standards and sanctioning are not relevant.
arbitrary |ˈärbiˌtrerē|
adjective
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
Such as basing who is the 'only' champion of a boxing division based on title defences, or rounds won in title defences, or KO's in title defences, or punches thrown in title defences, or punches landed in title defences, or percentage of punches landed in title defences, or number of title defences a year, or rankings (choose your org) of fighters beaten, or any number of other arbitrary reasons.
concrete
adjective |känˈkrēt; ˈkänˌkrēt; kənˈkrēt|
existing in a material or physical form; real or solid; not abstract : concrete objects like stones | it exists as a physically concrete form.
• specific; definite : I haven't got any concrete proof.
• (of a noun) denoting a material object as opposed to an abstract quality, state, or action.
Such as winning a fight against a/the lineal champion.
Number of defences isn't concrete -- in the context of the the point I am making. And it is arbitrary -- in the context of the point I'm making. Concrete: real, relevant factual. Arbitrary: random, subjective, irrelevant.
Going on and on pretending context isn't a factor in the meaning of words and language does you no favours.
I hope that clears up the pedantry.
Oh no! It appears it doesn't. I did not call you obtuse. I asked if you were being deliberately obtuse. It's not the same thing. You go on to write about nuances and grasping discussions. What is this if not a perfect example of me typing one thing and you deliberately misconstruing it in order to attack me for something else entirely? Wouldn't you agree that you've given a perfect example of someone being deliberately obtuse?
Yes, I used the word 'better' because that is clearly what YOU are discussing. You, from everything you've written, seem incapable of separating what I am discussing -- the (minimum) criteria required for anyone claiming to be THE champion -- and what you think we're discussing -- anything and everything that one might take into consideration when trying to decide who might be the best. Again, language is being used, and on my side understood, in the CONTEXT of what is being discussed.
'Hmmmmmm......now why would you think that I was discussing who is better?' Everything you've written -- sans the attempted pedantry.
Yes we are going in circles. I explain, you misunderstand, I explain, you misunderstand... And to be fair, me asking you if you're doing it deliberately is something of a compliment... when you consider the alternative.
Cheerio and merry secular holiday season to you and yours.
P.s. You don't think I'm account hopping do you? It would allow me to imply insult so much more freely if you did.
