The Greatness of Joe Frazier and an example of when the lineal was needed and came to the rescue of boxing

[Marchegiano]

Just totally untrue. Definitions, background and examples have all been offered. Not all concepts that are implicit are necessarily abstract.

Okay, as in genuine and not smartassed

Because of the who involved I'm going to make more effort to see through your eyes here.



On the debate itself I have noticed a tendency for all involved to combat or counterpoint ideas with happenings.

For example just above we have Kaf asking in earnest if lineal alone is enough to pull eyes.

To answer we're told about the single most popular boxer alive.

You can see my dilemma. I don't think I need to explain none of that interaction answers anything for the third party reader.




I can not help but notice my own confirmation bias too. I have expressed some level of telling where I plan to go with lineal when speaking sashes and a little bit to RnT. To see PPV among the nods from a lineal proponent ... right track then ain't it? I struggle after the sash to find lineal.



I believe I may be the only member who honestly give no ****s beyond the history being correct. So I am trying to lean into that value. There is plenty of truth to Kaf's stance of it being made up bull****. I'm going to hand you something; pound for pound is not just made up bull**** from a promoter post dated to fit fighters who never heard of any p4p champion status in their lifetime let alone careers.

If I make a case for Tommy Burns as p4p again I'll get plenty about Tommy but little to nothing against p4p. So much so, p4p proponents are secure enough in p4p to read me explain exactly where it came from and what it is for.

No arguments from those who say p4p is this or that, because in p4p what p4p is, is secondary to who p4p is.

Lineal has lost this touch, this debate and all like it are proof.

p4p enjoys various takes on what p4p is or should be with little argument as to the idea itself. I never put HWs on p4p. I say i don't think HWs belong and everyone respects that.

Kafkod speaks to p4p from time to time with no need to explain it's an idea. Not a real title with real history. A post dated idea applied to history. It is very much just that. Just as much as lineal.



So, question to youse all, has lineal lost this touch because men like Kaf and myself refuse to acknowledge all the competing definitions? For my part, no, not at all, I define my p4p and people respect that rather than attack me. If I define lineal I will be attacked by men who have no business disrespecting my works. My works get attacked themselves and I do not mean my opinions.

If you want to know the mechanism that turns away I'll tell you directly:

Should Kaf drop the debate and I sit around just going "true" "untrue" then you lot will implode on yourselves and have internal debate about the defines of lineal or lineage.

This is the nexus in which most of us were thrust when Fury made claim.

I was independently and years prior working the champs. Fury runs his mouth, now dudes like ****ing Sid-Knee, Redeemer, Daggum, etc. experts.

Everyone was the lineal expert to the point my first threads on lineal are title **** like "Lineal by someone who actually know some history"

Of them who really knew TF they were talking and who was just repeating what sounded good to them or made sense to them?



I have explained traditions. No one cares. Not lineal.

I have explained promotions. No one cares, that is not lineal.

I will have a go at market expression but I won't be shocked when it does not end the debate but rather adds a new and true element.







Truths:
There is always a single best
Lineal was invented to sell fights
Markets are dictated by consumers.



I don't feel like anyone's changed that.

[JAB5239]

Your wind analogy is as silly as the rest of your argument. Wind exists, it can be felt, measured, contained, diverted, used to propel ships and generate electricity, etc, etc.
Lineal titles have no objective or legal existence. They are nothing but ideas planted in the minds of naive, suggestible fans, to part them from their money.

So you're saying that just putting a belt around someone's waist and calling them champion makes it so. Bull****. You're the only naive poster here if you think that. Like the wind lineal doesn't need a "legal" existence. It just is. If Usyk dropped all his cartoon belts right now and kept fighting, would he still not be the champion? Your lack of common sense astounds me right now.

[Marchegiano]

So you're saying that just putting a belt around someone's waist and calling them champion makes it so. Bull****. You're the only naive poster here if you think that. Like the wind lineal doesn't need a "legal" existence. It just is. If Usyk dropped all his cartoon belts right now and kept fighting, would he still not be the champion? Your lack of common sense astounds me right now.

I do actually try to give space between posts so i don't see myself too much but this inspires a question:

Do you believe there must always be a lineal?


As in, if I did a list that just hit those names that are beyond reproach. I mean Lewis to Usyk and none between hit that level. Is it acceptable to say between lewis and usyk is only vacancy or must there always be a lineal?



If you dudes went over that already it's fair to tell me to reread. The ****er has gotten dense so I wouldn't doubt it.

[JAB5239]

I do actually try to give space between posts so i don't see myself too much but this inspires a question:

Do you believe there must always be a lineal?


As in, if I did a list that just hit those names that are beyond reproach. I mean Lewis to Usyk and none between hit that level. Is it acceptable to say between lewis and usyk is only vacancy or must there always be a lineal?



If you dudes went over that already it's fair to tell me to reread. The ****er has gotten dense so I wouldn't doubt it.

There can be spaces between lineal champions. Such was the case when Lewis retired. Wlad didn't become lineal until the Chagaev fight and obviously we have the resources to track what has happened since. Going back a bit to Tyson, he may have been the best fighter in the division but he want the lineal champion until he beat Spinks. Joe Louis was probably the best fighter in the division before he beat Braddock. But because hadn't beaten him yet could not be the lineal champ. Don't know if that makes sense or not. I'll try to respond more later. Have to get ready for work right now.

[QueensburyRules]

I notice you are ignoring the point I made in the comment you quoted.

Mike Tyson didn't need to beat Michael Spinks to be recognised by millions of sports fans worldwide as The Heavyweight Champion of the World. Lineal championship status is just like the alphabet titles, in that it is only ever as important and respected as the name of the guy who has it.

- - Lineal 2 dimensional harnessed sled dogs need a lot of help by big shot media names to cut up their steak and tuck in their napkins.

BTW, Alaskan Huskeys consistently out perform Siberia Huskies in the classic Iditarod Gruelathon...yeah!!!

[kafkod]

So you're saying that just putting a belt around someone's waist and calling them champion makes it so. Bull****. You're the only naive poster here if you think that. Like the wind lineal doesn't need a "legal" existence. It just is. If Usyk dropped all his cartoon belts right now and kept fighting, would he still not be the champion? Your lack of common sense astounds me right now.

"So you're saying that just putting a belt around someone's waist and calling them champion makes it so"

Duh ..... you mean like putting a gold medal around someone's neck makes them an Olympic champion?

Or like presenting a football team with a Super Bowl trophy makes them the Super Bowl champions?

Duh .. yeah, I think that's how it works, matel.

"If Usyk dropped all his cartoon belts right now and kept fighting, would he still not be the champion?"

No, Usyk wouldn't be champion if he dropped all his belts. That's not how it works. And for the record, Usyk himself has said that the imaginary lineal title means nothing to him and described it as, "Tyson Fury's bull****"

[kafkod]

There can be spaces between lineal champions. Such was the case when Lewis retired. Wlad didn't become lineal until the Chagaev fight and obviously we have the resources to track what has happened since. Going back a bit to Tyson, he may have been the best fighter in the division but he want the lineal champion until he beat Spinks. Joe Louis was probably the best fighter in the division before he beat Braddock. But because hadn't beaten him yet could not be the lineal champ. Don't know if that makes sense or not. I'll try to respond more later. Have to get ready for work right now.

Who says Wlad became lineal champion by beating Chagaev?

According to TBRB, who are the anonymous, faceless crew most often cited as self appointed custodians of the mythical lineal title, Wlad didn't become lineal champ till he beat Povetkin.

[kafkod]

Okay, as in genuine and not smartassed

Because of the who involved I'm going to make more effort to see through your eyes here.



On the debate itself I have noticed a tendency for all involved to combat or counterpoint ideas with happenings.

For example just above we have Kaf asking in earnest if lineal alone is enough to pull eyes.

To answer we're told about the single most popular boxer alive.

You can see my dilemma. I don't think I need to explain none of that interaction answers anything for the third party reader.




I can not help but notice my own confirmation bias too. I have expressed some level of telling where I plan to go with lineal when speaking sashes and a little bit to RnT. To see PPV among the nods from a lineal proponent ... right track then ain't it? I struggle after the sash to find lineal.



I believe I may be the only member who honestly give no ****s beyond the history being correct. So I am trying to lean into that value. There is plenty of truth to Kaf's stance of it being made up bull****. I'm going to hand you something; pound for pound is not just made up bull**** from a promoter post dated to fit fighters who never heard of any p4p champion status in their lifetime let alone careers.

If I make a case for Tommy Burns as p4p again I'll get plenty about Tommy but little to nothing against p4p. So much so, p4p proponents are secure enough in p4p to read me explain exactly where it came from and what it is for.

No arguments from those who say p4p is this or that, because in p4p what p4p is, is secondary to who p4p is.

Lineal has lost this touch, this debate and all like it are proof.

p4p enjoys various takes on what p4p is or should be with little argument as to the idea itself. I never put HWs on p4p. I say i don't think HWs belong and everyone respects that.

Kafkod speaks to p4p from time to time with no need to explain it's an idea. Not a real title with real history. A post dated idea applied to history. It is very much just that. Just as much as lineal.



So, question to youse all, has lineal lost this touch because men like Kaf and myself refuse to acknowledge all the competing definitions? For my part, no, not at all, I define my p4p and people respect that rather than attack me. If I define lineal I will be attacked by men who have no business disrespecting my works. My works get attacked themselves and I do not mean my opinions.

If you want to know the mechanism that turns away I'll tell you directly:

Should Kaf drop the debate and I sit around just going "true" "untrue" then you lot will implode on yourselves and have internal debate about the defines of lineal or lineage.

This is the nexus in which most of us were thrust when Fury made claim.

I was independently and years prior working the champs. Fury runs his mouth, now dudes like ****ing Sid-Knee, Redeemer, Daggum, etc. experts.

Everyone was the lineal expert to the point my first threads on lineal are title **** like "Lineal by someone who actually know some history"

Of them who really knew TF they were talking and who was just repeating what sounded good to them or made sense to them?



I have explained traditions. No one cares. Not lineal.

I have explained promotions. No one cares, that is not lineal.

I will have a go at market expression but I won't be shocked when it does not end the debate but rather adds a new and true element.







Truths:
There is always a single best
Lineal was invented to sell fights
Markets are dictated by consumers.



I don't feel like anyone's changed that.

"Lineal was invented to sell fights"

Truth. And it works, mainly because, as I have many times in these lineal debates, 99.99% of the people who shell out to watch "lineal title fights" have no fucking clue what a lineal title is even supposed to be..

[kafkod]

If I thought it was the two best fighters squaring off, then it would likely be lineal, so I would want to buy it.

To me Tyson-Spinks was a title fight. Tyson-Berbick was just a SB title fight. I was much more excited by Tyson-Spinks then I was by any of his three SB title fights leading up to Spinks.

Also, only Tyson-Spinks was PPV. The other three fights, the "undisputed championship" fights came with your HBO subscription.

So what does that say about the value of the lineal title compared to SB titles?

Michael Spinks was Mike Tyson's first PPV event.

It tells me that, as i said earlier. lineal titles are a marketing tool used to sell fights.

Spinks was a massive underdog vs Tyson. I'm sure that, going by how scared he looked in the ring pre-fight, even Spinks himself knew he didn't have a cat in hell's chance of winning. I think he probably asked for a King's ransom to sell his mythical title to the promoters of the fight, and making it a PPV was the only way give him what he was asking for.

[kafkod]

And because it can be utilized, plagorized that means it does not exist? How silly.

It exists as an idea in the minds of the people who use it to sell fights and the naive punters who fall for their spiel.