Nobody that drew the colour line should be considered a lineal champion

I think we all can agree on that boxing could need a good number more real world champions.

 

Read my (much shorter) post above.

 

For all those who talk up Langford's claims, i just did a quick trace on how lineage would have looked under Langford. Presuming he gets the title in 1911, he drops the title quickly to McVey, but wins it back (depending on the date he is actually awarded it). Langford's second and final reign ends with a loss to Gunboat Smith. Ironically, this is technically a unification fight between the coloured champion and the white champion! From there, the title would trace through Europe (Georges Carpentier would have been massive), follows the light heavyweight lineage a bit, before Gene Tunney eventually wins it back, in a unification fight from Dempsey (who had won it by beating Sharkey).

Langford, McVey and Jeanette were great fighters and obviously things would have been different if they got their chance because they would have fought less, but the flip side is they would ahve trained less also. I think that even if they beat Johnson, it is doubtful they were capable of lengthy reigns. Despite how great their records were.

 

Why don't we just give fighters credit for what they do instead of measuring against some mythical ideal that none - or a miniscule few - ever lived up to ?

If Tennis, Track and Field, Football, etc. have a better structure for deciding the best man than boxing, or rewarding the participants with status and opportunity, then so be it.
It's no secret anyway. There's no point getting depressed or angry about it. There's always the amateur game if you prefer.

 

History can't be changed and that is key.

People can debate current issues all they want but even that is trivial at best.

Vitali was accepted as the champion after lewis.

Wlad has been accepted as the champion after vitali.

In an ideal world a champion would fight his entire top five contenders. But if I tried tracing back linearity based on that premise the list of recognised lufcrazy heavyweight champions would not resemble the list of actual recognised heavyweight champions.

I think most of the media can distinguish between a titlist and a champion. It is about recognition, not just a hard and fast 1 v 2 rule.

 

What, some smegma about tennis? Yes, totally comparable to boxing's situation of governance and promotion, as well as history. Bravo.

As for the other thing? That's just conceding that today's system is obviously just as flawed in practice in recognition of champions(and it has been since the title 'split') as avoiding a match with a guy who's black and good or a fast little cyclops or whatever.

The original point of the thread was referring to the 'lineal title' concept. Which is a possession and a title. And carries no direct stipulations for recognition other than ownership taken from another man. external matchmaking is the champion's choice, and you criticise his reign for it, that obviously doesn't mean he isn't the champion. The little bits and pieces about the 'world' and eastern europe and this and that are funny, since the title has been in international contention since inception.

 

I understand the essense of the thread 'beating the man' means jack **** if neither that man or his succesor aren't willing to fight 40% of the top contenders including the best contenders of the era. The 'champ' is still lineal, but he is far from 'undisputed' and he isn't 'the man' or 'the best of the best', all those factors effect legacy

 

Yeah linearity isn't the be all and end all neither.

Let's say fighter a is recognised as the champ of the world and he loses to someone who loses to someone etc etc. The guy on the other end of the linearity has the most honest claim to being the champion but he isn't always the best in the world.

Take dm, lesnevic, briggs, baldomir, spinks and others throughout history.

Being the world champ is an achievement but it isn't the be all and end all.

 

i agree with this. i always felt jack johnson was the first true heavyweight champion. you can't leave out a race of people and call yourself world champ. people of all races and nationalities have become great fighters but the last time i checked, african american fighters have been pretty successful.

 

Ridiculous, but then you're NAMEROF KOOOOOOOOH!!!!!!

 

**** imagine if Ali/Clay, Louis, Tyson never got their shot either. No one would talk of 88 Tyson or 67 Ali if no one would fight them and Louis wouldn't have all those defenses

 

I absolutely agree and personally no longer regard Tyson as a linial/linear champion....

After being drug through hell by Steve Zouski in March of 86Tyson would avoid all of the great white fighters of his era. Thank God that Spinks had the gonads to face Gerry Cooney....Tyson's blatant duck of him, is one of the tragic things that so tarnishes his legacy...Again thanks to Spinks for not dropping the ball and avoiding the greatest white HW's of their era!!!!!

Tyson would try and cover this up much later in his career....but by waiting nearly 10 years between Zouski and McNeely (who was way past his prime by the way!!!!) gives us enough evidence that Tyson wanted no parts of the great Whites of the late 80's and early 90's....This cannot be dumped at the feet of Don King, who willingly matched Holmes against Cooney...

This is Tyson's tragic flaws and one of the reasons that I cannot pick him to beat any of the great white champiuons of the past and present in H2H fights!!!!

 

i didn't work all the way through this thread but the lineal championship would have what, never made it past sullivan? demspey drew it so he's not champion. lineal championship should be colourblind but it's not...

 

Yet, the exclusion of the Eastern Bloc fighters is OK? Apparently, they make decent fighters, also.

 

yes they do but their countries did not allow them to fight professionally. that's different from being a pro fighter and not getting a shot at the title because of the color of your skin.