Archie Moore versus Wladimir Klitschko's opposition

I wouldn't dispute the existence of the concept. In fact, I sometimes amuse myself by tracing competing lines and weighing up which one has the best 'claim' to linearity.

All I'm saying is that linearity might not be as significant as some hold it to be.

Clearly, the linearity that came with Spinks' victory over Ali has less of a shine than Buster Douglas' attainment of the honour in 1990.

 

A little harsh.

I think the its value is somewhere between the positions of McGrain and yourself.

 

Wlad and Vitali aren't ducking though McG.

 

From this, I take it that you believe the absence of a bout between the K brothers is "something very wrong " and that one or other of them is being "jobbed" ?

 

In the strict sense, yes.
By definition, yes.

But their situation is sufficiently unique as to render the term meaningless in their case.

 

That it's reasonable for them not to meet, belies the term "jobbed'" here.

It is also at odds with the idea that "something is very wrong, here."

It's difficult for a thing to be reasonable and very wrong.



I can understand the frustration of not having a clear linear champ at this time, but it's quite likely we'll get that soon when one of them (probably Vitali) retires.

Besides, how completely legit would a bout between the two ever be ?

There would probably always be doubts as to whether the fight was on the level.

 

There are a number of problems with the parallel, mainly that even if they did play, we still wouldn't know which country had the better cricket team as the S African side would be artificially stunted.

But leaving that aside, if you simply mean 'wrong' from the point of view of lack of the nice mathematical certainty of having a linear champ and "the man" at HW, then you're right. But that's hardly something I would term very wrong, with all that usually implies.

And besides, with those two, you would always have doubts as to the legitimacy of the outcome.

 

We might be belabouring the terminology here, but I would certainly disagree with the above.

Something might be reasonable and yet unsatisfactory, disturbing, displeasing, unpleasant, ugly, etc... but not wrong, as most understand the term.

My problem here is with the use of the term wrong, and how that word is usually interpreted.

I don't see that as much different from what I paraphrased. The essentials of both are the same.

Namely, there is a considerable interest in knowing which of the two is better. As they are the two beat, the reason for that interest is that we want to know which one is THE best.

I would agree in general. But there is a compelling reason for the lack of meeting, a reasonable reason, and I believe this will be taken into account by future boxing historians.

Obviously, if one of them had a legitimate win over the other, it would bolster his resume and his ATG standing. But that's probably not going to happen and they will have to be assessed in terms of who they actually fight.

 

Multiple belt holders is not good for the sport. There's only room for one man at the top of a ranking and that man is wlad right now. Whether he stages a fight with his brother or not doesn't mean a great deal to me.

Holmes never fought 1/2 whilst 1/2 neither. Since the belts split it's been harder to force guys into fighting the best because there's always easier roads to a title.