From Greb it was passed to Flowers, where it was then passed to Walker, who vacated in 1931. From there, The Ring grants Thil championship status after beating Jones (I believe). Thil lost the status in 1937 after losing to Apostoli in a non-title bout. Steele picks up The Ring's torch that year but is stopped in one round by Hostak, who then loses and then beats Krieger in rematch. Zale takes over in 1940 and becomes "the man" by unifying the belts against Abrams in 1941. I'm not denying that you are right because I am not an expert of the period, but I am trying to figure out when and where Garcia picked up the Lineal Title. I usually follow Cyber Boxing Zone's lead on historical lineages and they count Thil, Garcia, and everyone up until Zale as title claimants, not title acquirers.
I think the interesting thing about the argument that to be the Champ you have to come forward and walk a Champ down and beat him up coming forward to take his title is that that whole idea started back when judges were allowed to score rounds even. In the old days this was actually a thing and some judges might score a lot of rounds even to protect a Champ that wasn't being clearly beat up. But today judges can't score rounds even since they are forced to pick a winner in every round. And judges being forced to pick a winner every round sort of goes against the idea that you have to take it to the Champ to beat him or win rounds. Because if every round is close and scored even, by the challenger attempting to outbox a Champ instead of taking it to him and clearly beating him up every round, the Champ would retain his title in the event of all rounds being scored 10-10 and the result being a draw.
You've said it yourself mate tbh, Thil was the lineal champ, lost to Apostoli, lost to Corbett, lost to Apostoli, lost to Garcia.
Casuals only associate him with the brawl with Hearns and project the assumption that his entire career was like that.
I follow the logic but it all seems too fuzzy to concretely say Garcia was the Champion given the circumstances, which is why his claim is not universally recognized. When Thil got The Ring's crown by beating Jones, I don't believe it was a #1 vs. #2 situation. I could be wrong. Thil vs. Apostoli wasn't recognized as a title fight by the NYSAC because the commission recognized Steele as the champ. I wish it was clear-cut but this is what is painful about boxing. Even in days where things were more clear they could become convoluted. I remember studying Midget Wolgast and seeing that he beat Black Bill when they were both #1 and #2 in the world at flyweight but The Ring didn't recognize it as a "true championship" because Genaro had the NBA belt. Frankly, I wish boxing had single champions to save us fans a lot of wasted breath.
I don't think he was The Champion, I was just saying he was the lineal claimant. I think it was actually Dundee who had won the 1 vs 2 fight and then lost to Thil. The point is, Thil was undoubtedly the main man in the division, but was then stripped, and lineage doesn't care about stripping. For me Garcias claim is not too dissimilar to Erdeis claim, far from undisputed, but lineage wise it was solid.
That if you weren't afraid of Mike Tyson or if you could last more than 6 rounds you would best him. Both total nonsense.
But boxers do die in the ring so when you step inside the ring that possibility exists and you must be willing to take the risk. It's not really mythical, more like a school of thought... old school. I agree with the saying though. I don't want to have to adjust my reading glasses, sharpen my pencil, etc... I wan't my champion to be legit, not edge it on a controversial score card that could have gone either way. This is not just any other fight, this is a championship. This school of thought I am sure was born in the days of one belt. Things are different now and very few share my opinion. This should keep me busy at work tonight! I await your outrage boxing 24. A winner is defined as “a person or thing that wins something” and a champion is defined as “a person who has defeated or surpassed all rivals in a competition, especially in sports”. ... A champion wins contests/tournaments again and again, and they are held in high regard because of it. A winner has only won.
