Jack Dempsey openly stated he would not fight black challengers

You weren’t misquoted. You continue to lie.

Your “make them up as you go” perceptions are flawed and self contradicting.

Re Louis you were NEVER talking Lineal - affording Joe just 2 defences against different black opponents.

When it came to Jeffries in kind, you switched horses. Sad.

If a reigning Champion is holder of both the official World Title and the conceptual Lineal Title, they are inextricably entwined.

They’re either both on the line or they are not.

As you would have it - if Griffin KO’d Jeffries in their exhibition, Jeff keeps the official World Title but Hank wins the Lineal World Title.

That’s brilliant. Just brilliant with several perverted hypotheticals to be getting on with as a consequence of your “logic”.

You keep trying to mindlessly deflect into paid fights and prize fights and their related definitions and ramifications - ONLY as you deem them.

Opponents are generally paid to engage Champs in exhibitions, no?

When Jeffries fought Griffin in an exhibition there was a “prize” - $100 if Griffin lasted the 4 round distance. Those were the “conditions”.

Hank did last the distance, therefore he won the “prize”.

So Griffin won the “prize” in a prizefight against the official and lineal reigning HW Champion of the World. Hmmm.

I see you’ve also set your own, special statute of limitations for Jeffries (why is that NOT at all surprising) - as if retiring and coming back after 6 years out wasn’t unique absolute, let alone very much so in Jeff’s time.

Lol, too funny man.

And wasn’t if Jeff himself who decided the winner of Hart vs Root be deemed his successor - ending claims to all his “titles”?

Jeff was such a man of decision, wasn’t he?

So, what was Jeff in his comeback, - an indian giver? Hahah.

 

Perfect JT!

Unfortunately, you can lead a horse to the fountain (of facts and knowledge) but you still can’t make it think.

 

Sorry Greg, I like you as a poster man, but that’s just too logical. Please desist from such thinking, it has no place in this discussion.

 

If Jeffries retired for 13 years before coming back to fight Johnson (for Johnson's lineal title in the real world) it would be perfectly reasonable, of course, that the lineal cutoff for retirement would be about 14 years

 

For sure, you gotta move heaven and earth and apply a lot double standards for Big “Jum” to ensure that he comes up smelling like roses.

Jim will always limbo under the statute of limitations and defy all conventional definitions otherwise, whatever they be, since they will always be set for Jim - the man was a statute unto himself.

Or, at least, his more obsessed fans think he was.

 

You are the first and only person to ask me this question. I have never seen it asked before. I say after 5-10 year or so ...after a man announces his retirement he is an emeritus lineal champion. What is your opinion?

 

You can ring in on the Greb vs Louis thread , that is unless you fear voicing your opinion on it. After all you are an authority on Greb are you not? Others have asked me via PM why you have not. Some say Louis via early KO.

 

That was almost funny. Who were you talking to again?

 

I was talking to Pugs, the guy i quoted. Are you that stupid?

To make it even more obvious for the dumb - the guy you dobbed in

 

He is not around to hear you. And he did not " dobbed " me. Who's dumb now?

 

I’ve already given you my definition for the conditions that must be met for a fighter to lose their lineal title. Once again “they lose their title in the ring or retire”.

This is the established and accepted mainstream definition of the conditions that must be met. It is the application of this definition that the published history of HW lineage in various sources, some of which have been linked to you in this thread, is based.

However, it is of course your prerogative to use a different definition in your own interpretation. I’m genuinely interested in your definition, as it may give further insight into some of your views. So far, in this thread, you have suggested:

Post #57 – If Lewis fought Fury now, they’d both be lineal champions

Post #57 – “When Tunney retires the original lineal title was dead and buried with him. It does not mean there are no lineal champions after him”

Post #66 – You consider it “most likely” lineage can only be lost if the lineal champion loses in the ring.

Post #66 – Contradicting the above, you infer lineage can also be lost if the lineal champion is retired and older than the oldest ever lineal champion

Post #68 – You answer your view is lineage can only be lost in the ring (i.e. the lineal title died with Tunney)

Post #70 – You give the following definition for the conditions that must be met for lineage to be lost “it belongs to the man who beat the last lineal title holder. If the lineal champ retires and does not come back for 10 years the #1, #2 or 3 fighter meet for the new title” You then edit the start of that last sentence to read “If the lineal champ retires and does come back after a # of years say five years or more”

Post 81 – On how long a champ has to be retired before lineage is lost you write “I say after 5-10 years or so”


Mendoza, surely you appreciate that this level of inconsistency and contradictory, gives the impression you are making it up as you go along.

I’ll ask you again. Could you please DEFINE the conditions that you feel must be met for the champion to LOSE their lineage. If your definition includes a length of time the lineal champion is retired before losing lineage, please specify that exact (i.e. not a range) period of time within it.

 

Greg Price wrote. I’ve already given you my definition for the conditions that must be met for a fighter to lose their lineal title. Once again “they lose their title in the ring or retire

>>> I have given you my opinion.

You are the first and only person to ask me this question. I have never seen it asked before. Where can I find another poster or historian answering this question on the length of when lineal expires? What's that, no where? I thought so. I say after 5-10 year or so ...after a man announces his retirement he is an emeritus lineal champion. And he has to lose that tile in the ring. That is my final answer, happy now?

Are you done asking what if questions? PM me if you have any more questions, okay?

 

"emeritus lineal champion"

That seems fair. Somebody like Jeffries or Tunney after they quit the ring could be considered the emeritus lineal champion.

I happen to be emeritus myself from the University of California. I no longer hold the position I held before I retired. Someone else fills that role. I am no longer on the staff at the University. I am only pensioned.

Isn't it the same in boxing? Once the fighter retires the new claimants to the title fight it out to establish a new champion by consensus. The active consensus champion is then the new lineal champion. No one can win an emeritus title. Nor could anyone defend it. If you are emeritus you no longer have a title to defend.

As for Jeffries in 1910, I don't think anyone would have ever claimed he was still champion if Johnson had been white and Jeff came out of retirement to win back the title from a white man. That spin was undergirded by racism, I think.

 

I won't PM you & have no further questions for you.

It's a shame you've ducked the request for a definition that specified an exact period of time, but I understand why you've done so. It's the same reason you've asked me to PM you. i.e. an attempt to avoid your double standards being exposed publicly.

Let's take the extremes of your 5 to 10-year range.

1) Lineage is lost if 5-years passes since the retired champs last defence = On this side of the scale of your own definition, Jeffries lost lineage on 26th August 1909, so he was not defending the lineal title against Johnson and never defended against a black man.

2) Lineage is lost if 10-years passes since the retired champs last defence = Whilst of course you'd be the only person in the world who applied this definition, at least by your own definition Jeffries was defending his lineal title vs Johnson. Incidentally, using this end of the scale of your own definition, Lennox Lewis was lineal champion until 21st June 2013, at which point the lineal title became vacant. Wlad's fight vs Povetkin 4-months later would have established him as lineal champion, by your bizarre definition. Wlad would have been lineal champion for 2-years, with a modest 3 lineal title defences to his name.

 

I have 2 x observations on this post:

1) I agree with your final paragraph. The established, accepted & consensus view is that Johnson was defending lineal champion vs Jeffries and that Jeffries never defended against a black contender. p.s, I rank Jeffries much higher than most on my all time HW list & have no desire to denigrate his standing.

2) I find it amusing Mendoza has liked your post, presumably to signify he endorses the content. That's the content, if read and understood properly, that includes you effectively stating that Jeffries "no longer had a title to defend". He's liked a post that contradicts his own position that Jeffries was defending his lineal title vs Johnson.