Does Ken Norton Deserve To Be In The IBHOF?
Posted: 20 Jul 2010, 14:22
Does Ken Norton Deserve To Be In The IBHOF?
BoxRec
Does Ken Norton Deserve To Be In The IBHOF?
Page 1 of 1
Re: Does Ken Norton Deserve To Be In The IBHOF?
Posted: 20 Jul 2010, 14:34
My opinion all linear champions were "famous" so they should be in. Anyone after and including Tyson I may change my mind about that.
Re: Does Ken Norton Deserve To Be In The IBHOF?
Posted: 20 Jul 2010, 14:51
TROLL
Re: Does Ken Norton Deserve To Be In The IBHOF?
Posted: 20 Jul 2010, 15:29
Norton was not a linear champion.wsbuf wrote:My opinion all linear champions were "famous" so they should be in. Anyone after and including Tyson I may change my mind about that.
Re: Does Ken Norton Deserve To Be In The IBHOF?
Posted: 20 Jul 2010, 17:53
Holmes beat Ali for it.BarryWashington wrote:Well, he technically is. When Spinks refused to fight Norton, they stripped Spinks of the WBC. You could argue that it's not legitimate, but; that's how it went down. Norton beat Young which made him the WBC Champion. The linear effect was confusing during that period, but; it controversially ended up with Holmes anyway.SteveO wrote:Norton was not a linear champion.wsbuf wrote:My opinion all linear champions were "famous" so they should be in. Anyone after and including Tyson I may change my mind about that.
Re: Does Ken Norton Deserve To Be In The IBHOF?
Posted: 20 Jul 2010, 19:02
The linear champ has NOTHING to do with the belt the linear champ had if that champ retires.
Just b/c Ali had the WBA belt and retires doesn't mean the next WBA champ becomes the lineal champ.
The only way to become a lineal champ if the champ retires is becoming the defacto champ OR by defeating the prior lineal champ.
Holmes after beating Norton was one of two HW titlists . . but option A wasn't needed after Holmes beat Ali . .that gave him the lineal title anyway.
Now if you want to argue Norton SHOULD have been the lineal champ since he got robbed blind in the Ali rubber match, that is a different argument.
Just b/c Ali had the WBA belt and retires doesn't mean the next WBA champ becomes the lineal champ.
The only way to become a lineal champ if the champ retires is becoming the defacto champ OR by defeating the prior lineal champ.
Holmes after beating Norton was one of two HW titlists . . but option A wasn't needed after Holmes beat Ali . .that gave him the lineal title anyway.
Now if you want to argue Norton SHOULD have been the lineal champ since he got robbed blind in the Ali rubber match, that is a different argument.
Re: Does Ken Norton Deserve To Be In The IBHOF?
Posted: 20 Jul 2010, 21:11
BarryWashington wrote:You might want to sharpen up on your history. After the second Spinks/Ali fight, Ali said he was "retiring" from the sport, therefore making the WBA title vacant. Also, before the fight Spinks was stripped of the WBC title for fighting Ali instead of Norton. So, after that Norton fought Young for the WBC Title Eliminator (and won), then in the fight after that Norton lost to Holmes. The WBA champion went in so many different hands after Ali retired; like so:iamasadlittleboy wrote:Holmes beat Ali for it.BarryWashington wrote: Well, he technically is. When Spinks refused to fight Norton, they stripped Spinks of the WBC. You could argue that it's not legitimate, but; that's how it went down. Norton beat Young which made him the WBC Champion. The linear effect was confusing during that period, but; it controversially ended up with Holmes anyway.
Tate
Weaver
Dokes
Coetzee
Page
Tubbs
Witherspoon
Smith
then
Tyson (who had won the WBC title from Berbick)
Ali didn't have anything, sure he retired "the champion", but; the fact remains is he retired and you could say that the next lineal champion was Tyson since he had the WBC and WBA belts. However, if you're going to say Holmes was a lineal champion then you have to say Norton was too.
Titles have nothing to do with it, there was no linear champion until Ali came back, the WBA/WBC title split ensured that. Holmes beating the former champion gives him it as a "passing of the torch" type symbolism.
Much like there wasn't a champion straight after the retirement of Lennox, despite there being a WBA/WBC/IBF/WBO champions spread all over. You either beat the last champion or all the top contenders
Re: Does Ken Norton Deserve To Be In The IBHOF?
Posted: 21 Jul 2010, 05:57
So Jack Johnson only became the 'true' champion in 1910 when he beat
Jeffries ?
Jeffries ?
Re: Does Ken Norton Deserve To Be In The IBHOF?
Posted: 21 Jul 2010, 06:09
In the eyes of many quite possibly, though you could make a claim for Burns becoming the de facto champion.Robinson wrote:So Jack Johnson only became the 'true' champion in 1910 when he beat
Jeffries ?
Re: Does Ken Norton Deserve To Be In The IBHOF?
Posted: 21 Jul 2010, 06:51
The lineal title is a nonsense really, the lineage has been broken that many times it has to be forced to be made again in order for it to be perpetuated.
http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/achamp.htm
The line has broken at least 6 or 7 times.
Titles can't really come into it, because it's a lineage...otherwise you're following the ownership of a belt, not the lineage.
When people retire, die or whatever and make someone else beating them an impossibility, then the line dies...the same way a childless couple not continuing their family lineage. You can't just invent a child so the tree can continue?
CBZ sort of had the right idea in that when anyone attempted to unify after the line was broken, they could perhaps be considered "the man" at the weight and a new lineage starting but it's a pretty abstract concept that just hopes to fill in the gaps so people can perpetuate it.
http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/achamp.htm
The line has broken at least 6 or 7 times.
Titles can't really come into it, because it's a lineage...otherwise you're following the ownership of a belt, not the lineage.
When people retire, die or whatever and make someone else beating them an impossibility, then the line dies...the same way a childless couple not continuing their family lineage. You can't just invent a child so the tree can continue?
CBZ sort of had the right idea in that when anyone attempted to unify after the line was broken, they could perhaps be considered "the man" at the weight and a new lineage starting but it's a pretty abstract concept that just hopes to fill in the gaps so people can perpetuate it.
Re: Does Ken Norton Deserve To Be In The IBHOF?
Posted: 21 Jul 2010, 08:17
Anyone read Ken Norton's recent autobiography BELIEVE!
I was wondering how much he writes about his boxing career in it.
(as the synopsis says its mainly about coming back from his near fatal car accident.)
In his earlier autobiography GOING THE DISTANCE,IMOP there seems to be a gap
in his boxing career from 1972 in it,when he fought James Woody and Jack O'Halloran
which was a fight of the year canadate.He doesnt even mention it.
I was wondering how much he writes about his boxing career in it.
(as the synopsis says its mainly about coming back from his near fatal car accident.)
In his earlier autobiography GOING THE DISTANCE,IMOP there seems to be a gap
in his boxing career from 1972 in it,when he fought James Woody and Jack O'Halloran
which was a fight of the year canadate.He doesnt even mention it.
Re: Does Ken Norton Deserve To Be In The IBHOF?
Posted: 21 Jul 2010, 09:43
Don't really see what's so hard to understand about the lineal title. Yes, you need to make the odd decision here and there over the past 100 years. But it's the best system there is. And it's really not that difficult to comprehend.
Re: Does Ken Norton Deserve To Be In The IBHOF?
Posted: 21 Jul 2010, 15:37
What does TROLL mean? Am not stupid, have seen it on another topic. Cheers.dempseyfire wrote:TROLL
Re: Does Ken Norton Deserve To Be In The IBHOF?
Posted: 21 Jul 2010, 16:17
Wikipedia that gave you that confidence Barry? 
Re: Does Ken Norton Deserve To Be In The IBHOF?
Posted: 22 Jul 2010, 09:45
The definition is pinpoint, was just wondering if you had double-checked somewhere to be pretty sure. JJ