Is "Lineal" (Linear) the only real identification of a world Champion?

If every fighter fought every other fighter at least 2 times and progressed through an orderly knock out tournament none of the issues we're talking about would apply. There would be no place/need for subjectivity. The extent to which this is a terrible analogy makes me & Sly's case for us.

 

Remarkably intelligent post.

 

well said.

 

I think there is a difference, since back in Dempsey's days the world was different and few cared about such thing as equal rights. In Patterson era a champ could duck contenders much more easily, because video tapes were not as common and politics were not included. Had public been as aware of things it is now, then surely there had been more pressure on Patterson. Also, because of this incident the idea of 'stripping of title' was introduced and fighters have known the possibility ever since.

I think a good case could be made that Foreman lost his title in the eyes of everybody as he went three years without defending it against real contenders, the same would be done to everybody. Honestly: Foreman-Grimsley and Tyson-Holy I were in the same month, are you saying you considered the Grimsley fight as the title bout?

There have been several cases in the history where the championship has not been clear. Was Marvin Hart ever a champ (Jeffries said so, many didn't agree), was Muhammad Ali defending his title when he fought Bonavena, is there a heavyweight champion at all at this very moment etc?

 

Hey, Ugo's on the right team! This must be what the American & Russian generals felt like when they shook hands over the rubble of Berlin.

 

To be fair, Foreman/Briggs also pre-dated the wide spread internet era.

 

Before Internet era yes, but there were several boxing magazines, people traded tapes, newspapers even over here actually wrote about boxing. On other words, people knew what was going on in boxing, much more so than in Patterson's era. Thus nobody bought the idea of Foreman-Grimsley being an actual championship fight

 

In fact...I've only just found out today from your post that Foreman even fought a Grimsley!! :giggle:

 

Boxing was much more popular and mainstream in Patterson's day than it was in the 90s. :scratcher:

 

Mainstream in the sense that more people saw championship fights, but overall knowledge was worse, since some fighters (such as Liston) had difficulties getting publicity and fight results behind the championship bouts were more difficult to find, thus even keen sports fans didn't necessarily know Liston. Also back then liberals had not yet taken over, meaning that Liston was seen as unfit champion because he was bad - that could not happen now.

(you have lost, pull a Liston)

 

The linear Champion is THE champ, period. BUT Don't think for a second that actually means he's the best fighter in his weight class. There are plenty of examples of the linear champ not being the best in his weight class, or even close. I'll use Sly's examples and stick with Baldomir and Briggs, at no point in history were either of these guys the best boxer in thier weight class maybe not even top 5, yet both were linear champions at one point.

 

So you did see Foreman-Grimsley being THE fight for the crown while Holy-Tyson was just a scrap between contenders, correct?

 

Why don't you go ahead and read my whole post.

 

His question is fair when you consider your "whole" post!

You started by saying: "The linear Champion is THE champ, period."

 

Your whole post says Briggs was 'linear' champion, which we knew already, and you expressed the ideal that linear is the same as 'true'. I was asking for your personal experiment of that time: was Foreman-Grimsley. to you, at the fight time, the real world championship fight, or do you view it as such only from historical stance. This would also mean that in Lewis-Briggs, you saw Lewis challenging the reigning champ for his title

I am not trying to make a fight with you here, it is just that you would be the only boxing fan I know who would have seen that as the actual title fight.

 

If you beat the linear champ, you are the champ. That cannot be disputed. What can be disputed is whether the champ is actually the best guy in his weight class. So basically what I am saying is the way boxing is run, being a linear champ doesn't mean jack shit. I mean we ended up with linear champs such as Briggs and Baldomir. How much can it really mean?

 

I just don't think being the linear champ means anything is all.

 

You said it means they're THE champ period.:scared:

 

But anyway, it was nice of you to convince yourself otherwise in your own posts &save us the trouble. ::

 

Hut, yes, but only technically speaking.

 

Cool, then we agree. I just understood your original post very differently

 

Technically speaking damn it.

 

I guess I just suck at getting a point accross today. Sorry. ::

 

The champs whoever we collectively believe him to be. Sorta the same principles as fairies. At heavyweight, Wlad Klitschko is a great big fairy, IMO.

 

Sounds like you're fence riding. What is your vote?

 

That'd be amazing if instead of belts we made champs put on fairy wings, a tutu and a wand.

 

If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

 

ZED!

Do you side with Steve and Ramonza (Only Lineal champs have the distinction "CHAMPION") or do you side with myself, Hut and UGO (depends on the circumstances).

You're either for me or you oppose me, you're either with me or against me!! :fightme:

I don't allow fence riders to stay "safe" when I start a poll...

 

:bears:

 

No, you don't have to be the linear Champ to be considered the champ. Only in some cases is the linear champ actually the best champ in a division. This is part of the reason boxing pisses me off, it's not even close to a real sport like the NFL or NBA, it has no structure what so ever. It's all about who you're promoted by, hardly anyone earns anything anymore. There are probably guys out there with losing records that would beat some current "Champs" Nothing is earned, everything is purchased.