Archie Moore versus Wladimir Klitschko's opposition

Ratings are subjective anyway. I tend to believe Wladimir is the best around and has been for several years now, the #1.
Championships are often subjective too. That might **** some people off but it's true. I'd call him the real world's champion, but others will say he's not.

But in the ATG stakes I rate him on his full career body of work, and it's hard to argue against his accomplishment on that scale.

 

I used to believe in the sanctity of the 'heavyweight championship' and the need for ONE world's champion, the eminence of linear championship etc.

But learning more about boxing history I've realized that it's a bit of a nonsense and it was never was it was made out to be.

 

One has to regard him as the heavyweight king. He fought Chagaev. The lineage has been re-established for less.

 

Well aside from some very irrational judging decisions, e.g. Lewis-Holyfield 1, (ironically, a bout to unify), this is probably true.
And it's certainly not good, especially as compared to the certainty of the days of Marciano, Patterson, Liston, Ali, Frazier, Foreman etc.

Again, maybe splitting hairs here, but I would say "something very bad" as opposed to "something very wrong." The former simply describes what is, the latter tends to impute blame at some level.

Interestingly, Dempsey's reign suffers from similar concerns as to whether or not he was the best, and in that case I think something was "very wrong."

However, I could have been misinterpreting what you were saying in your earlier posts. I got the impression that you were somehow blaming the brothers for not meeting, being related, or both.

Also, you may have misinterpreted my use of the word meaningless in post #135. I wasn't saying that the concept of linearity was meaningless, but rather that using the term ducking was meaningless as we usually take that to mean that one fighter is avoiding another out of fear or some other base motive.

Not quite. There are two different issues getting conflated here.

1) the issue of determining who (if anyone) has the claim to be considered the linear (or lineal) champion.

and

2) The issue of having two men, each with some claim on linearity, and failing to settle the issue by fighting


These have a lot of overlap, but are not identical. In the absence of a deciding bout, I have characterized (1) as you quoted:

"...the nice mathematical certainty of having a linear champ and "the man" at HW"

And if the two never meet, that's pretty much what it boils down to. That, and consensus opinion as to which is the 'real' champ. (Wlad, for most in the current situation).

You are taking stronger umbrage at issue (2). I have not said anything about that being a technicality, merely that it was reasonable that, in this case, they wouldn't fight, and I allowed that BAD would be more apt than WRONG in describing the mess as it was a less loaded word.

I would agree with all of the above sentiment, if not the wording.

Agreed.

Again, disaster is a bit over the top in light of the history. I'd simply settle for BAD.

I was unhappy with the state of affairs after the WBA/WBC split when Ali was stripped for rematching Spinks and Holmes fought Norton for the 'title.'

At least there was only two. It got worse, and Holmes is partly to blame for lending legitimacy to the new IBF belt rather than defending the one he held. This, I believe, slightly impacts both his claim to linearity and also his claim to the having twenty consecutive defences. He wasn't defending the same thing each time.

I think you're right about the public's distinction between heavy and the lower belts, and also right about the vexing acceptance of the uncertainty.

Unfortunately, its a sign of the times. We have been mired in this mess for so long now and NOT had a recognizable and recognized World Heavyweight Champion that the public has accommodated to the status quo.

What I do consider "deeply wrong" is the existence of the multitude of governing authorities, many of them resembling little banana republics, who, together with the multiplicity of competing promoters, perpetuate the current hodge-podge and for financial gain, act against any moves that would bring clarity or certainty to the issues under consideration.