If Usyk/Fury retires as the champion...

How could it possibly be irrelevant.

Whose ratings matter if not fans?

 

Think about what you're saying in the context of my claiming everything lineal is post dated until the 60s.

That's a detail that supports my claim not detracts from it. Yes, Sullivan was widely seen as best, Jackson was black so I don't know why anyone would pretend he was in any running, and Corbett was the new hot ticket. Agreed, what is also agreed is none of them had any rating at all and any rating given to them is attributed long after the facts of their careers.

As to the term itself. Again, that is my point. Sullivan never heard the term his entire lifetime. The term lineal champion is a post dated term applied after the fact for most of the history it covers.


The truth is the champion elected the contender and when a champion retired unbeaten they elected the men who would fight for the vacancy. That's why Corbett thought he could crown Maher and why Jeffries did crown Hart. The vacancy fight during Corbett's retirement pulled its authority from Corbett. The vacancy fight post Jeffries pulled its authority from Jeffries. There was 0 discussion about consensus at that time. Heaps of articles about whether or not Corbett's wish should be honored. Heaps of articles about if Jeffries can give his belt away. None about consensus at the time it happened.

This tradition of the current champion electing the next goes back to Figg.

 

Yup ... I fail to see where I was mistaken. All you're doing is telling me what I've told you and the other guy before you. I can appreciate sharing more detail, that's a mensch move for any reader less informed, but I am struggling to see anything contrary to my claims.

There was no one and two during those contests.

There was the champion's election and the only check to that power is public endorsement. T

here are no ratings. There is no one talking about lineal champions. These are things you apply after the fact.

Steve was once thought of as 1 or 2? Jack Root is solidified by Burns as being second only to Hart? There are obvious problems that come with post dating ratings to match a narrative that did not exist. Now you have to either agree that the rating is something we made up long after the fights happened or assert that Steveie boy was more than Corbett's choice and Root was more than Jeffries' choice. Both, of course, must be the second best living HW at that time for 1 vs 2 to have any merit.

 

I am not ashamed to say I have been a little confused. I apologize.

It did seem odd to me to be telling me 1 and 2 is totally legit but also it's just made up at the same time

Don't take this as a criticism, just how I saw things:


You start by acknowledging the context of my conversation with another user then go right into using details that support my claims while taking stances contrary to it.

For example:
" Peter Jackson was viewed as the number 1 contender to his crown, Corbett was number 2." in the context of a conversation about whether or not ratings have any historical association with pre-body heavyweight champion traditions going back to Sullivan or is a modern association that's been retrofitted over history, sounds quite a lot like it is in support of the idea that rating had some level of association with Jackson., Corbett, and Sullivan.

Likewise, the other fella told me I am wrong about lineal being a modern idea

You don't see how that is contrarian or why I would feel the need to point out that is exactly what's been claimed?

To the point where no one even actually knows about the long tradition of the HW champion being the expert in boxing the public depends on to dictate who is and isn't any good going all the way back to James Figg.

That said, I can accept my mistake. Without the context of the prior conversation I'm just being a jerk to you and that's not cool. My bad, and my bad for assuming too.

 

All claims are easily verifiable. I have no reason to lie to a phone screen.

The term can be whatever the term is, as I said the concept of linearity has existed for a very very long time.

I don't think you're being neither passive nor aggressive tbh, I've just taken your words at face value as someone whos trying to further their knowledge.

Of course I used the ring rankings, they've been the standard for fan discussions for long before you were even born.

I don't need anything beyond surface knowledge. I'm not a boxing historian. I'm not a sports writer. I'm a person writing on a public forum.

How did Corbett become Sullivan's 2? What do you even mean by that question?

As for who invented ratings, there's always been ratings that have a conflict of interest. So who a champion wants to face, who his promoters want him to face, who the sanctioning body want him to face. Then you have independent rankings that sit outside that, these are what fans will usually reference.

But here's some rankings from 1889:

No. 1—John L. Sullivan, champion of the world and holder of the "Police Gazette" champion belt.
No. 2—Jake Kilrain of Baltimore, ex-champion of the world.
No. 3 —Peter Jackson, the colored heavy-weight champion of Australia.
No. 4—Frank P. Slavln of Melbourne, champjon of New South Wales.
No. 5—Jem Smith, champion of England.
No. 6—Charley Mitchell, boxing champion of England.
No. 7—Joe McAuliffe of San Francisco, Cal, champion of the Pacific Coast.
No. 8— Mike C. Conley, the Ithaca Giant, of Ashland, Wis.
No. 9—George Godfrey of Boston, Mass, the colored champion of America
No. 10—Joe Lannon of Boston, Mass.
No. 11—Jack Ashton of Providence, R I.
No. 12—Patsy Cardiff of Minneapolis, Minn.
No. 13—Dominick McCaffrey of New York.
No. 14—Jack Fallon of Brooklyn. K. Y.
No. 15—Pat Killlen of St. Paul, the Duluth Slasher.
No. 16—Jack Wannop of London, England.
No. 17—Woolf Bendoff of London, England.
No. 18—Frank Glover of Chicago.
No. 19—Paddy Ryan of San Francisco.
No. 20—Tom Lees of Australia

 

I hope you had a great holiday ... if applicable.


Those are ratings about 1889 not from.

It's a simple question but rather than asking questions so you can kind your answers I'll just tell you. Corbett being given the honor of fighting Sullivan for his title was 100% John's choice. Nothing to do with ratings that did not exist.

You really don't need anymore than surface understand and are not expected to be extremely knowledgeable, but this conversation did start out with feigning some level of knowledge while blaming others for your own ignorance. If you only dwell on the surface of things then treat people like they too have the ability to google and read the first few hits. If it doesn't make sense to you, explain that, rather than taking a stance that lacks any humility at all.

Have you ever wondered why Ring ratings are so important? Maybe it is because Nat made them up to sell them to promoters? I promise you this, there are no ratings from the 19th century. There are lists of good men but the culture was HW champion lead. The HW champ is the authority on who is and isn't good and until Nat paired with Tex that was true. From 1720s to 1920s. Unranked lists of "good men" does not make a ratings board. A champion claiming a contender is second only to him does not rank everyone under them.

The concept was invented by Nat to sell the old timey glory days of boxing stories he made up and what he did not make up was stolen from the rival Police Gazette. No one much cared too much, certainly not enough to make any stink about it until the two belt era began.

People, unresearched and knowing no better, believed all sorts of stupid nonsense about lineal that makes no sense and does not even fit the lineage and go on teaching others. man who beat the man, 1 vs 2 for vacancy, etc. gets taught over and over again like as if there is any truth to it meanwhile the real, actual, history is lost to time and anyone so much as hinting to the truth is ostracized as some kind of looney tune.

Ratings were a non-point until k2. That's why from Corbett all the way to Wlad lineal exchanged hands without rating being mentioned once. Not apart of the convo in Sully's day, not in Jeff's, did not matter when Joe Louis returned, lineal mattered for Ali but not ratings yet, not until fans wanted justification to make Wlad lineal. Then rating mattered and got post dated by who? The folks who invented the product to sell in the first place. Ring. Just a little bit before TBRB formed.

If it is a point of interest rather than contention I'll make a thread with sources and such. Do not take my word or anyone else's for it. See the proof yourself. It's made up nonsense that's been post dated to act like it's been around for a very long time.



Man who beat the man? 1 vs 2? Tom Spring happened though. Jem Ward happened. The Police Gazette existed.

 

I didn't have a holiday, but it was my birthday so thanks.

They're actual from December 1889, not that I'd expect you to know that tbf.

Sullivan fought whoever he fought, he was the champion so made the decision, but that's the same today. Not really relevant to the discussion at hand.

I didn't feign knowledge, I told you your post didn'take sense, and that's because it didn't.

Your promise means little since it's based on a flawed premise. As you said, we're all surface level here, do some research and you'll learn what I learnt.

Everyone knows 1v2 is a new idea due to the proliferation of belts. But the concept of lineage was around long before then.

Of course ratings mattered before K2, this is where you are flat out wrong again. I try to be civil and not blunt but when you state things that are wrong, I have to tell you. This is why people debated Jones or Erdei so ferociously in the mid 90s. It's why the MWs had to have a tourney of which Hopkins won. So many more examples of 1v2 being used in the pre k2 era.

None of this is beyond surface level, your problem is you started with a flawed premise.

Since you made a promise to me I'll make one to you. No one debating the real champion out of Erdei and Jones Jr, cared about Wladimir Klitschko and who he had to beat to become the man of the division.

 

Cheers bud, I genuinely hope you had a great time and felt loved. Too often fans disagree about a subject and forget we're all fans, we're all friends really. Shared interests and all that.

I'm not playing this nuh-uh game anymore than I am willing to play the passive aggressive nonsense. I'll just hammer one subject at a time if you want to do that.

Whose ratings did you post?

Is it the Police Gazette who argued against gloved boxing, tried their hardest to stop it, but could do nothing because the culture of the day was Heavyweight champion lead.

 

Exactly, we're all in the same hymn book even if on different hymn sheets at times.

Yes the Police Gazette rankings. Published in December 1889

 

I have to two-part this. What verbiage did the Police Gazette themselves use and at what point, in your opinion, do the lists become ratings?

I don't mean to be condescending here, I'm just writing this next bit just in case folks read and are not sure what I mean or think I'm being a bit jerky over the usage of terms. They used to call what you would call a ranking a list. I'm just asking where in time luf sees the end of lists and birth of ranks. They have some level of different connotations, but that difference is exactly what luf and I are discussing.