Nobody that drew the colour line should be considered a lineal champion

Yes he did ,and both were before Dick Tiger, who incidentally never won the British Title, or even fought for it, he was not eligible, not because of his colour, but because he was Nigerian.
Tiger won the Britsh Empire and Commonwealth titles.

 

Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis, Jack Johnson, Floyd Patterson, Jim Jeffries, Larry Holmes, and countless other champions in the heavyweight division alone are not lineal champions?

How about we stick with the normal approach, and just trace the title back from the genesis of Queensbury rules. That seems a lot less blatantly stupid than pick and choosing people based on who you think was a ducker and/or a racist.

 

Read my post again. Wasn't about lineal. Was just about World Champion in a meaningful way.

 

I know that the lineal system is flawed, but if you are going to get rid of it, then you must have a prety good idea what you are going to put in its place, and it must stand scrutiny. So...

A. What system would you put in its place.

B. Good luck trying to persuade the world to adopt it.

 

lineal ≠ undisputed

 

I mean, that still doesn't make sense at all. Plenty of fantastic World Champions are missing important names on their resume, avoided some guys till they were weak, and other various dubious matchmaking... That makes them not World Champions? This is the most nonsensical revisionism possible, literally makes no sense. In no way is there a written rule for being a champion that you have to decimate a division part and parcel. It's never been seen that way.

 

A. The one I like (in that one Ali is still champ, btw)

B. **** 'em

 

Is it nonsensical that you have to beat your best challengers to prove that you're the man? Funny, in other sports it isn't. Of course, those sports didn't peak in the 1890's either.

 

If this scenario you propose were to exist, i would say that the unification happened well before Johnson. The First unification probably happened before there even was a coloured title, when John L Sullivan defeated Herbert Slade. Assuming John L was later stripped or a new champ recognised, when he retired and drew the colour line, the next unification probably occurred when James Jeffries defeated Bob Fitzsimmons. I say this, of course, because Jeffries had knocked out the coloured champion Peter Jackson.

 

No, it's nonsensical to expect it without failure and refuse someone recognition, given that one man has an entire field of challengers coming at him from different countries, weight classes, and in modern times different organizations. Not to mention that promotional interests control who, where, and how often he fights? So who the **** is a champion and who isn't? Don't give me that mocking tone when you're doing a **** job of articulating your criteria for revising the concept realistically. Never have I claimed boxing peaked in the 1890's either.

Roy Jones didn't fight a lot of guys. Indeed he was not a champion, but a ducking ******. clearly he hated the irish, and eastern europeans too.

 

First real World Heavyweight Champion was Tommy Burns ,but only between the 1st and 14 th rds on Boxing Day. 1908.
Jack Johnson was the next , but only until he refused to fight Langford.
In short its an unworkable, unenforcable premise. Things would ,should have been different in an ideal world , but when has the world ever been ideal?
Jackson was the main threat to an old Sullivan, but prior to that there wasn't really much support for George Godfrey as a challenger.
Corbett flat out ducked Jackson, yet everyone points to John L as the main culprit at least he was past it when he declined to face Jackson.
From what I have read, Fitz wasn't any too keen to meet Jackson either.
Hart wasnt champ long enough to make any difference, though he wasa racist judging by his remarks about Johnson . Johnson avoided Langford. Willard would not fight a coloured challenger.

Tunney did not fight a black challenger, though he offered to fight an eliminator with Wills.
Dempsey did not fight Wills. etc, we would have to rewrite all boxing history ,and would probably lean to far the other way excluding worthy white fighters.
Tommy Loughran never fought a black man in 130 fights ,and 7 defences of his title , do you take his crown away?
Its a L.O.O.B**** cks

 

In short, today fighters get rightfully stripped when they duck their mandatories and those with just one belt are rarely if ever seen as undisputed champs. As it should be.

It's kind of strange to say that someone who refuses to fight challengers no matter their merit should be viewed as the true champ. It's like Spain going to WC 2014 saying that they won't face Brazil in the final, since they're dirty South Americans. And still walk away with the title. They would reduce themselves to a joke. And that principle is the same in any sport. Yeah, even boxing.

Well, for you this is perfectly alright, though. To question it would be "nonsensical".

Ps. Ok, 1915.

 

Hey, isn't it a shame that Federer couldn't draw the "Latin Line"? That would make him the winner of six straight Wibledons and x number of French Opens. His accomplishements would **** on all others'.

And you know what? It would be damn revisionist and disrepectful to say anything but that he was the fully deserving winner of all those titles (that he of course wouldn't have won without the "Latin Line").

 

Maybe professional boxing is just ****, and doesn't have real world champions like some of those other sports.

 

This content is protected

Do they really? Are you really trying to make this point? The major ABC orginizations today have consistent no ethics or compulsion to enforce mandatories. Look at the WBA and their 3 titles per weight class that they don't enforce unification for. The rankings are just as bought and paid and influenced by money(see: Jose Sulaiman and the WBC) as always. Do the orgs rank other ABC champs(who are obviously better than some contenders) in order to force unification? **** no. They are fine with title sitting. How many undisputed champs do we have today? Sergio Martinez is middleweight champion of the world with no alphabelt . And he beat a guy campaigning at JMW and WW to do it .Can you say that there is any legitimate real champion of the world right now adhering to your 'feeling'?I can't even call it a method because of how nebulous your criteria is. Someone who has closed up a weight class and is methodically picking off contenders? Your best bet is Wlad, but even he wont fight his brother. And took a year and a half to set up a fight between a loudmouth ex-cruiserweight with no real HW legacy.

I know what you're getting at. I bet you believe that I'm some sort of guy that hates modern fighters altogether, doesn't watch modern boxing or acknowledge their prowess, which is really the reason you're taking little bitchy digs at me here. I probably watch more current boxing than you do, so don't paint me in your head and on here.