-
Re: What was Mike Tyson's greatest win ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hulk
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hulk
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Floyd Patterson is still the youngest HW champion. When Tyson beat Berbick, Spinks was still the universally recognized champ, lineal champ that is. So Tyson in actuality never became HW champ until he beat the man, and that was Spinks.
Lineal title>ABC alphabet title.
So I go with Spinks as Tyson's greatest win to become the 2nd youngest HW champ in 1st round ko.
Tyson is the youngest heavyweight champion ever in my mind and in most people's minds.
Doesn't mean it's true. Boxing is a man who beat the man who beat the man sport. Alphabet gangs don't change that. Tyson wasn't champ until he had beaten Spinks who beat Holmes who won it beating Norton after Ali retired who had beaten Leon who had beaten Ali who had beaten Foreman who had beaten Frazier who had beaten Ali who had beaten Liston.
Just because some corrupt organization strips a still active champion doesn't make the new guy a champion if the word is to mean anything. See Darius M being stripped and belts being given to Jones as a classic example.
The only "youngest" title Tyson really has is the youngest heavy ever to lose the crown.
Consensus is that he is the youngest my friend.
We can play semantics all day with him winning a world title but not the lineal title, but perception is everything.
And it is a moot point, as Spinks proved to be no threat what so ever. Hardly worthy of denying Tyson from being the youngest hw champ ever.
Regardless, who do you think was his best victory ?
The concensus is factually wrong. This isn't a matter of opinion, we can determine the correct view. Unless you want to argue the meaning of the word champion has changed over time? Then "history" requires and apples to apples comparison. The lineal crown is the only measurable constant. That says Floyd is the youngest.
Again, what I note about Tyson's best victory is how mediocre it is compared to the best wins of other great fighters. I guess I'd say Spinks or Tony Tucker.
-
Re: What was Mike Tyson's greatest win ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hulk
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Floyd Patterson is still the youngest HW champion. When Tyson beat Berbick, Spinks was still the universally recognized champ, lineal champ that is. So Tyson in actuality never became HW champ until he beat the man, and that was Spinks.
Lineal title>ABC alphabet title.
So I go with Spinks as Tyson's greatest win to become the 2nd youngest HW champ in 1st round ko.
Tyson is the youngest heavyweight champion ever in my mind and in most people's minds.
Doesn't mean it's true. Boxing is a man who beat the man who beat the man sport. Alphabet gangs don't change that. Tyson wasn't champ until he had beaten Spinks who beat Holmes who won it beating Norton after Ali retired who had beaten Leon who had beaten Ali who had beaten Foreman who had beaten Frazier who had beaten Ali who had beaten Liston.
Just because some corrupt organization strips a still active champion doesn't make the new guy a champion if the word is to mean anything. See Darius M being stripped and belts being given to Jones as a classic example.
The only "youngest" title Tyson really has is the youngest heavy ever to lose the crown.
Just stop already. Lineal in many cases is = to a can of soup. One of the most overused meaningless terms in boxing. I do not particularly like Tyson but he's the youngest hev champ ever and the last unified one.
-
Re: What was Mike Tyson's greatest win ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hulk
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Floyd Patterson is still the youngest HW champion. When Tyson beat Berbick, Spinks was still the universally recognized champ, lineal champ that is. So Tyson in actuality never became HW champ until he beat the man, and that was Spinks.
Lineal title>ABC alphabet title.
So I go with Spinks as Tyson's greatest win to become the 2nd youngest HW champ in 1st round ko.
Tyson is the youngest heavyweight champion ever in my mind and in most people's minds.
Doesn't mean it's true. Boxing is a man who beat the man who beat the man sport. Alphabet gangs don't change that. Tyson wasn't champ until he had beaten Spinks who beat Holmes who won it beating Norton after Ali retired who had beaten Leon who had beaten Ali who had beaten Foreman who had beaten Frazier who had beaten Ali who had beaten Liston.
Just because some corrupt organization strips a still active champion doesn't make the new guy a champion if the word is to mean anything. See Darius M being stripped and belts being given to Jones as a classic example.
The only "youngest" title Tyson really has is the youngest heavy ever to lose the crown.
Just stop already. Lineal in many cases is = to a can of soup. One of the most overused meaningless terms in boxing. I do not particularly like Tyson but he's the youngest hev champ ever and the last unified one.
Nonsense! The line ran Holmes, Spinks, how could Tyson win it by beating Trevor Berbick? It's like arguing Ernie Terrell was a heavyweight champion when he beat Eddie Machen in 1965. I mean after all, the WBA had stripped Ali and given the belt to the winner of the Terell-Machen fight! And he had a couple of defenses as well!
Yet NO serious fan thinks Terrell was heavyweioght champion. Why not? The linear king was still freaking active!
-
Re: What was Mike Tyson's greatest win ?
Lineal title means a lot more than an ABC title. Whoever holds it in the eyes of many hardcore boxing fans and boxing historians is considered to be the true champion.
Would anyone here dare say John Ruiz was Heavyweight champion when he beat Holyfield for the WBA alphabet strap while Lennox Lewis was universally recognized as the lineal champ? Is John Ruiz considered to be the same kind of HW champ as Sullivan, Dempsey, Johnson, Louis, Marciano, Ali, Holmes? Or was he just an paper champion?
-
Re: What was Mike Tyson's greatest win ?
well this has degenerated into nonsense even faster than I had imagined...
-
Re: What was Mike Tyson's greatest win ?
Please the term begs the question for its own need. It's Who beat Whom not who beat whom who beat the other guy. Taylor beat Hopkins. He never beat those Bernard did. Lineal is a metaphor for alphabet.
-
Re: What was Mike Tyson's greatest win ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hulk
well this has degenerated into nonsense even faster than I had imagined...
As the immortal sportswriter Dan Jenkins wrote "It ain't hard to f##k up...it just takes time!"
-
Re: What was Mike Tyson's greatest win ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hulk
well this has degenerated into nonsense even faster than I had imagined...
As the immortal sportswriter Dan Jenkins wrote "It ain't hard to f##k up...it just takes time!"
I was quoting the immortal David Letterman during an interview with the immortal MR. T. ;D
-
Re: What was Mike Tyson's greatest win ?
Quote:
well this has degenerated into nonsense even faster than I had imagined...
You got that right.
-
Re: What was Mike Tyson's greatest win ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Please the term begs the question for its own need. It's Who beat Whom not who beat whom who beat the other guy. Taylor beat Hopkins. He never beat those Bernard did. Lineal is a metaphor for alphabet.
Boxing has always been (and despite the present dilapidated state) hopefull will always remain a sport analagous to "King of the Hill." There is one hill (in boxing a division) and room for only one king at a time at the top of the hill. The way to become king is to take the hill from the current king.
Having some corrupt friend build another hill nearby and point at you and say "You're a king too!" carries no drama, no honesty and starts something we are seeing today. We have what? Around 100 "champions" just with the four biggest groups. Heck that doesn't even include the IBO/IBC type groups.
Believing these alphabet titles mean anything is like believing a division "championship" in baseball is the same as winning the World Series. It's just silly.
-
Re: What was Mike Tyson's greatest win ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hulk
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hulk
well this has degenerated into nonsense even faster than I had imagined...
As the immortal sportswriter Dan Jenkins wrote "It ain't hard to f##k up...it just takes time!"
I was quoting the immortal David Letterman during an interview with the immortal MR. T. ;D
Geeze and I thought I was up on all my Mr. T related stuff! My bad :(
-
Re: What was Mike Tyson's greatest win ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hulk
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hulk
well this has degenerated into nonsense even faster than I had imagined...
As the immortal sportswriter Dan Jenkins wrote "It ain't hard to f##k up...it just takes time!"
I was quoting the immortal David Letterman during an interview with the immortal MR. T. ;D
Geeze and I thought I was up on all my Mr. T related stuff! My bad :(
Oh then you MUST WATCH THIS. It is truly hilarious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxbAPGRyGAM
-
Re: What was Mike Tyson's greatest win ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Please the term begs the question for its own need. It's Who beat Whom not who beat whom who beat the other guy. Taylor beat Hopkins. He never beat those Bernard did. Lineal is a metaphor for alphabet.
Boxing has always been (and despite the present dilapidated state) hopefull will always remain a sport analagous to "King of the Hill." There is one hill (in boxing a division) and room for only one king at a time at the top of the hill. The way to become king is to take the hill from the current king.
Having some corrupt friend build another hill nearby and point at you and say "You're a king too!" carries no drama, no honesty and starts something we are seeing today. We have what? Around 100 "champions" just with the four biggest groups. Heck that doesn't even include the IBO/IBC type groups.
Believing these alphabet titles mean anything is like believing a division "championship" in baseball is the same as winning the World Series. It's just silly.
That's right and the term lineal is no different. Its like p4p. Absolutely meaningless today. A buzz phrase for popularity. Toss all the freakin tin for all I care.
-
Re: What was Mike Tyson's greatest win ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hulk
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hulk
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hulk
well this has degenerated into nonsense even faster than I had imagined...
As the immortal sportswriter Dan Jenkins wrote "It ain't hard to f##k up...it just takes time!"
I was quoting the immortal David Letterman during an interview with the immortal MR. T. ;D
Geeze and I thought I was up on all my Mr. T related stuff! My bad :(
Oh then you MUST WATCH THIS. It is truly hilarious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxbAPGRyGAM
Thanks for that! How the heck does Mr. T stay in character and not bust out laughing? "I'm hoarse because Hulk was choking me!"
-
Re: What was Mike Tyson's greatest win ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Please the term begs the question for its own need. It's Who beat Whom not who beat whom who beat the other guy. Taylor beat Hopkins. He never beat those Bernard did. Lineal is a metaphor for alphabet.
Boxing has always been (and despite the present dilapidated state) hopefull will always remain a sport analagous to "King of the Hill." There is one hill (in boxing a division) and room for only one king at a time at the top of the hill. The way to become king is to take the hill from the current king.
Having some corrupt friend build another hill nearby and point at you and say "You're a king too!" carries no drama, no honesty and starts something we are seeing today. We have what? Around 100 "champions" just with the four biggest groups. Heck that doesn't even include the IBO/IBC type groups.
Believing these alphabet titles mean anything is like believing a division "championship" in baseball is the same as winning the World Series. It's just silly.
That's right and the term lineal is no different. Its like p4p. Absolutely meaningless today. A buzz phrase for popularity. Toss all the freakin tin for all I care.
But that's just not true. At least not always true. Look at a guy like Wonjonkam, one of maybe 6-7 real champs around today. That line goes from him to Naito to him to Tunocaos to 3k Battery all the way back to Miguel Canto in the mid 1970's. Sergio goes through BHOP who began a new line when he beat Keith Holmes and became THE MAN at 160. The crowns were earned directly, not by appointment by some authority.
Now like I said, there's only AT MOST 6-7 champions today. The rest? Contenders with jewelry. I don't want to throw out the idea of titles completely (as you seem willing to do) because i think it is elemental to the sport and I don't really know what it looks like without the concept of a championship.
-
Re: What was Mike Tyson's greatest win ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Please the term begs the question for its own need. It's Who beat Whom not who beat whom who beat the other guy. Taylor beat Hopkins. He never beat those Bernard did. Lineal is a metaphor for alphabet.
Boxing has always been (and despite the present dilapidated state) hopefull will always remain a sport analagous to "King of the Hill." There is one hill (in boxing a division) and room for only one king at a time at the top of the hill. The way to become king is to take the hill from the current king.
Having some corrupt friend build another hill nearby and point at you and say "You're a king too!" carries no drama, no honesty and starts something we are seeing today. We have what? Around 100 "champions" just with the four biggest groups. Heck that doesn't even include the IBO/IBC type groups.
Believing these alphabet titles mean anything is like believing a division "championship" in baseball is the same as winning the World Series. It's just silly.
That's right and the term lineal is no different. Its like p4p. Absolutely meaningless today. A buzz phrase for popularity. Toss all the freakin tin for all I care.
But that's just not true. At least not always true. Look at a guy like Wonjonkam, one of maybe 6-7 real champs around today. That line goes from him to Naito to him to Tunocaos to 3k Battery all the way back to Miguel Canto in the mid 1970's. Sergio goes through BHOP who began a new line when he beat Keith Holmes and became THE MAN at 160. The crowns were earned directly, not by appointment by some authority.
Now like I said, there's only AT MOST 6-7 champions today. The rest? Contenders with jewelry. I don't want to throw out the idea of titles completely (as you seem willing to do) because i think it is elemental to the sport and I don't really know what it looks like without the concept of a championship.
Look it cant be both untrue and true at the same time. That's the crux of its problem. It doesn't really mean anything.
-
Re: What was Mike Tyson's greatest win ?
Anyway strayed off topic here. Still think its the back to back Razor fights.
-
Re: What was Mike Tyson's greatest win ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hulk
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hulk
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hulk
well this has degenerated into nonsense even faster than I had imagined...
As the immortal sportswriter Dan Jenkins wrote "It ain't hard to f##k up...it just takes time!"
I was quoting the immortal David Letterman during an interview with the immortal MR. T. ;D
Geeze and I thought I was up on all my Mr. T related stuff! My bad :(
Oh then you MUST WATCH THIS. It is truly hilarious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxbAPGRyGAM
Thanks for that! How the heck does Mr. T stay in character and not bust out laughing? "I'm hoarse because Hulk was choking me!"
He is a man of MANY talents.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InNdEWXWtsA
"Everybody gotta wear clothes and if you don't you'll be arrested"
Words of wisdom.
-
Re: What was Mike Tyson's greatest win ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Please the term begs the question for its own need. It's Who beat Whom not who beat whom who beat the other guy. Taylor beat Hopkins. He never beat those Bernard did. Lineal is a metaphor for alphabet.
Boxing has always been (and despite the present dilapidated state) hopefull will always remain a sport analagous to "King of the Hill." There is one hill (in boxing a division) and room for only one king at a time at the top of the hill. The way to become king is to take the hill from the current king.
Having some corrupt friend build another hill nearby and point at you and say "You're a king too!" carries no drama, no honesty and starts something we are seeing today. We have what? Around 100 "champions" just with the four biggest groups. Heck that doesn't even include the IBO/IBC type groups.
Believing these alphabet titles mean anything is like believing a division "championship" in baseball is the same as winning the World Series. It's just silly.
That's right and the term lineal is no different. Its like p4p. Absolutely meaningless today. A buzz phrase for popularity. Toss all the freakin tin for all I care.
But that's just not true. At least not always true. Look at a guy like Wonjonkam, one of maybe 6-7 real champs around today. That line goes from him to Naito to him to Tunocaos to 3k Battery all the way back to Miguel Canto in the mid 1970's. Sergio goes through BHOP who began a new line when he beat Keith Holmes and became THE MAN at 160. The crowns were earned directly, not by appointment by some authority.
Now like I said, there's only AT MOST 6-7 champions today. The rest? Contenders with jewelry. I don't want to throw out the idea of titles completely (as you seem willing to do) because i think it is elemental to the sport and I don't really know what it looks like without the concept of a championship.
Look it cant be both untrue and true at the same time. That's the crux of its problem. It doesn't really mean anything.
[scratching head] WHAT can't be true and untrue at the same time?
1. If you mean linearity cannot be reestablished once broken, I disagree. It has happened many times. It usually consists of either there being only two logical candidates and they meet ( Root and Hart meeting after Jeffries retired) or if there are more, that one guy beats the hell out of enough of the rest that by acclimation (and sometimes gradually) the educated boxing public is persuaded (BHOP at 160 after Leonard had left the division or Mike Spinks consolidating things after Bob Foster retired).
2. If you mean ALL divisions must have linear champs at a point in time for the premise to work, again I disagree. Fighters retire. fighters move up and until one guy clears away the mess, however long that takes? The crown in that division is vacant. I'd argue at least ten divisions today have vacant championships.
-
Re: What was Mike Tyson's greatest win ?
Tyson's greatest wins were and not in any order. Spinks, Berbick, old Holmes, Ruddock, Tucker.
And Peter McNeely.;D
-
Re: What was Mike Tyson's greatest win ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hulk
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hulk
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hulk
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hulk
well this has degenerated into nonsense even faster than I had imagined...
As the immortal sportswriter Dan Jenkins wrote "It ain't hard to f##k up...it just takes time!"
I was quoting the immortal David Letterman during an interview with the immortal MR. T. ;D
Geeze and I thought I was up on all my Mr. T related stuff! My bad :(
Oh then you MUST WATCH THIS. It is truly hilarious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxbAPGRyGAM
Thanks for that! How the heck does Mr. T stay in character and not bust out laughing? "I'm hoarse because Hulk was choking me!"
He is a man of MANY talents.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InNdEWXWtsA
Words of wisdom.
"Everybody gotta wear clothes and if you don't you'll be arrested"
Ok THAT on the other hand was more than a little disturbing and I had to stop watching. I prefer to remember Mr Tero's "I live alone! I train alone! I'll win the title alone!
-
Re: What was Mike Tyson's greatest win ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Please the term begs the question for its own need. It's Who beat Whom not who beat whom who beat the other guy. Taylor beat Hopkins. He never beat those Bernard did. Lineal is a metaphor for alphabet.
Boxing has always been (and despite the present dilapidated state) hopefull will always remain a sport analagous to "King of the Hill." There is one hill (in boxing a division) and room for only one king at a time at the top of the hill. The way to become king is to take the hill from the current king.
Having some corrupt friend build another hill nearby and point at you and say "You're a king too!" carries no drama, no honesty and starts something we are seeing today. We have what? Around 100 "champions" just with the four biggest groups. Heck that doesn't even include the IBO/IBC type groups.
Believing these alphabet titles mean anything is like believing a division "championship" in baseball is the same as winning the World Series. It's just silly.
That's right and the term lineal is no different. Its like p4p. Absolutely meaningless today. A buzz phrase for popularity. Toss all the freakin tin for all I care.
But that's just not true. At least not always true. Look at a guy like Wonjonkam, one of maybe 6-7 real champs around today. That line goes from him to Naito to him to Tunocaos to 3k Battery all the way back to Miguel Canto in the mid 1970's. Sergio goes through BHOP who began a new line when he beat Keith Holmes and became THE MAN at 160. The crowns were earned directly, not by appointment by some authority.
Now like I said, there's only AT MOST 6-7 champions today. The rest? Contenders with jewelry. I don't want to throw out the idea of titles completely (as you seem willing to do) because i think it is elemental to the sport and I don't really know what it looks like without the concept of a championship.
Look it cant be both untrue and true at the same time. That's the crux of its problem. It doesn't really mean anything.
[scratching head] WHAT can't be true and untrue at the same time?
1. If you mean linearity cannot be reestablished once broken, I disagree. It has happened many times. It usually consists of either there being only two logical candidates and they meet ( Root and Hart meeting after Jeffries retired) or if there are more, that one guy beats the hell out of enough of the rest that by acclimation (and sometimes gradually) the educated boxing public is persuaded (BHOP at 160 after Leonard had left the division or Mike Spinks consolidating things after Bob Foster retired).
2. If you mean ALL divisions must have linear champs at a point in time for the premise to work, again I disagree. Fighters retire. fighters move up and until one guy clears away the mess, however long that takes? The crown in that division is vacant. I'd argue at least ten divisions today have vacant championships.
Scratching head as to why you are scratching your head. This theory of lineal is flawed and if you ever want to debate it then start a thread.
-
Re: What was Mike Tyson's greatest win ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Please the term begs the question for its own need. It's Who beat Whom not who beat whom who beat the other guy. Taylor beat Hopkins. He never beat those Bernard did. Lineal is a metaphor for alphabet.
Boxing has always been (and despite the present dilapidated state) hopefull will always remain a sport analagous to "King of the Hill." There is one hill (in boxing a division) and room for only one king at a time at the top of the hill. The way to become king is to take the hill from the current king.
Having some corrupt friend build another hill nearby and point at you and say "You're a king too!" carries no drama, no honesty and starts something we are seeing today. We have what? Around 100 "champions" just with the four biggest groups. Heck that doesn't even include the IBO/IBC type groups.
Believing these alphabet titles mean anything is like believing a division "championship" in baseball is the same as winning the World Series. It's just silly.
That's right and the term lineal is no different. Its like p4p. Absolutely meaningless today. A buzz phrase for popularity. Toss all the freakin tin for all I care.
But that's just not true. At least not always true. Look at a guy like Wonjonkam, one of maybe 6-7 real champs around today. That line goes from him to Naito to him to Tunocaos to 3k Battery all the way back to Miguel Canto in the mid 1970's. Sergio goes through BHOP who began a new line when he beat Keith Holmes and became THE MAN at 160. The crowns were earned directly, not by appointment by some authority.
Now like I said, there's only AT MOST 6-7 champions today. The rest? Contenders with jewelry. I don't want to throw out the idea of titles completely (as you seem willing to do) because i think it is elemental to the sport and I don't really know what it looks like without the concept of a championship.
Look it cant be both untrue and true at the same time. That's the crux of its problem. It doesn't really mean anything.
[scratching head] WHAT can't be true and untrue at the same time?
1. If you mean linearity cannot be reestablished once broken, I disagree. It has happened many times. It usually consists of either there being only two logical candidates and they meet ( Root and Hart meeting after Jeffries retired) or if there are more, that one guy beats the hell out of enough of the rest that by acclimation (and sometimes gradually) the educated boxing public is persuaded (BHOP at 160 after Leonard had left the division or Mike Spinks consolidating things after Bob Foster retired).
2. If you mean ALL divisions must have linear champs at a point in time for the premise to work, again I disagree. Fighters retire. fighters move up and until one guy clears away the mess, however long that takes? The crown in that division is vacant. I'd argue at least ten divisions today have vacant championships.
Scratching head as to why you are scratching your head. This theory of lineal is flawed and if you ever want to debate it then start a thread.
I was scratching my head because I didn't understand your point. We are already debating it, why start a thread? Any response to my latest? And "it's imperfect" ain't much of an argument. The question is not perfection (we're humans), it is "best available."
-
Re: What was Mike Tyson's greatest win ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Please the term begs the question for its own need. It's Who beat Whom not who beat whom who beat the other guy. Taylor beat Hopkins. He never beat those Bernard did. Lineal is a metaphor for alphabet.
Boxing has always been (and despite the present dilapidated state) hopefull will always remain a sport analagous to "King of the Hill." There is one hill (in boxing a division) and room for only one king at a time at the top of the hill. The way to become king is to take the hill from the current king.
Having some corrupt friend build another hill nearby and point at you and say "You're a king too!" carries no drama, no honesty and starts something we are seeing today. We have what? Around 100 "champions" just with the four biggest groups. Heck that doesn't even include the IBO/IBC type groups.
Believing these alphabet titles mean anything is like believing a division "championship" in baseball is the same as winning the World Series. It's just silly.
That's right and the term lineal is no different. Its like p4p. Absolutely meaningless today. A buzz phrase for popularity. Toss all the freakin tin for all I care.
But that's just not true. At least not always true. Look at a guy like Wonjonkam, one of maybe 6-7 real champs around today. That line goes from him to Naito to him to Tunocaos to 3k Battery all the way back to Miguel Canto in the mid 1970's. Sergio goes through BHOP who began a new line when he beat Keith Holmes and became THE MAN at 160. The crowns were earned directly, not by appointment by some authority.
Now like I said, there's only AT MOST 6-7 champions today. The rest? Contenders with jewelry. I don't want to throw out the idea of titles completely (as you seem willing to do) because i think it is elemental to the sport and I don't really know what it looks like without the concept of a championship.
Look it cant be both untrue and true at the same time. That's the crux of its problem. It doesn't really mean anything.
[scratching head] WHAT can't be true and untrue at the same time?
1. If you mean linearity cannot be reestablished once broken, I disagree. It has happened many times. It usually consists of either there being only two logical candidates and they meet ( Root and Hart meeting after Jeffries retired) or if there are more, that one guy beats the hell out of enough of the rest that by acclimation (and sometimes gradually) the educated boxing public is persuaded (BHOP at 160 after Leonard had left the division or Mike Spinks consolidating things after Bob Foster retired).
2. If you mean ALL divisions must have linear champs at a point in time for the premise to work, again I disagree. Fighters retire. fighters move up and until one guy clears away the mess, however long that takes? The crown in that division is vacant. I'd argue at least ten divisions today have vacant championships.
Scratching head as to why you are scratching your head. This theory of lineal is flawed and if you ever want to debate it then start a thread.
I was scratching my head because I didn't understand your point. We are already debating it, why start a thread? Any response to my latest? And "it's imperfect" ain't much of an argument. The question is not perfection (we're humans), it is "best available."
Or sustainable. Like linear.
-
Re: What was Mike Tyson's greatest win ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Please the term begs the question for its own need. It's Who beat Whom not who beat whom who beat the other guy. Taylor beat Hopkins. He never beat those Bernard did. Lineal is a metaphor for alphabet.
Boxing has always been (and despite the present dilapidated state) hopefull will always remain a sport analagous to "King of the Hill." There is one hill (in boxing a division) and room for only one king at a time at the top of the hill. The way to become king is to take the hill from the current king.
Having some corrupt friend build another hill nearby and point at you and say "You're a king too!" carries no drama, no honesty and starts something we are seeing today. We have what? Around 100 "champions" just with the four biggest groups. Heck that doesn't even include the IBO/IBC type groups.
Believing these alphabet titles mean anything is like believing a division "championship" in baseball is the same as winning the World Series. It's just silly.
That's right and the term lineal is no different. Its like p4p. Absolutely meaningless today. A buzz phrase for popularity. Toss all the freakin tin for all I care.
But that's just not true. At least not always true. Look at a guy like Wonjonkam, one of maybe 6-7 real champs around today. That line goes from him to Naito to him to Tunocaos to 3k Battery all the way back to Miguel Canto in the mid 1970's. Sergio goes through BHOP who began a new line when he beat Keith Holmes and became THE MAN at 160. The crowns were earned directly, not by appointment by some authority.
Now like I said, there's only AT MOST 6-7 champions today. The rest? Contenders with jewelry. I don't want to throw out the idea of titles completely (as you seem willing to do) because i think it is elemental to the sport and I don't really know what it looks like without the concept of a championship.
Look it cant be both untrue and true at the same time. That's the crux of its problem. It doesn't really mean anything.
[scratching head] WHAT can't be true and untrue at the same time?
1. If you mean linearity cannot be reestablished once broken, I disagree. It has happened many times. It usually consists of either there being only two logical candidates and they meet ( Root and Hart meeting after Jeffries retired) or if there are more, that one guy beats the hell out of enough of the rest that by acclimation (and sometimes gradually) the educated boxing public is persuaded (BHOP at 160 after Leonard had left the division or Mike Spinks consolidating things after Bob Foster retired).
2. If you mean ALL divisions must have linear champs at a point in time for the premise to work, again I disagree. Fighters retire. fighters move up and until one guy clears away the mess, however long that takes? The crown in that division is vacant. I'd argue at least ten divisions today have vacant championships.
Scratching head as to why you are scratching your head. This theory of lineal is flawed and if you ever want to debate it then start a thread.
I was scratching my head because I didn't understand your point. We are already debating it, why start a thread? Any response to my latest? And "it's imperfect" ain't much of an argument. The question is not perfection (we're humans), it is "best available."
Or sustainable. Like linear.
Sure it is sustainable, just not infinitely so. And it is FAR more sustainable than any ABC group which can simply reach in and declare a champion without any justification at all. In what way does the WBA having THREE 126 champions sustain something in a more useful way that the lineal concept? BTW, I'm out for th evening. Thanks for the conversation!
-
Re: What was Mike Tyson's greatest win ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Please the term begs the question for its own need. It's Who beat Whom not who beat whom who beat the other guy. Taylor beat Hopkins. He never beat those Bernard did. Lineal is a metaphor for alphabet.
Boxing has always been (and despite the present dilapidated state) hopefull will always remain a sport analagous to "King of the Hill." There is one hill (in boxing a division) and room for only one king at a time at the top of the hill. The way to become king is to take the hill from the current king.
Having some corrupt friend build another hill nearby and point at you and say "You're a king too!" carries no drama, no honesty and starts something we are seeing today. We have what? Around 100 "champions" just with the four biggest groups. Heck that doesn't even include the IBO/IBC type groups.
Believing these alphabet titles mean anything is like believing a division "championship" in baseball is the same as winning the World Series. It's just silly.
That's right and the term lineal is no different. Its like p4p. Absolutely meaningless today. A buzz phrase for popularity. Toss all the freakin tin for all I care.
But that's just not true. At least not always true. Look at a guy like Wonjonkam, one of maybe 6-7 real champs around today. That line goes from him to Naito to him to Tunocaos to 3k Battery all the way back to Miguel Canto in the mid 1970's. Sergio goes through BHOP who began a new line when he beat Keith Holmes and became THE MAN at 160. The crowns were earned directly, not by appointment by some authority.
Now like I said, there's only AT MOST 6-7 champions today. The rest? Contenders with jewelry. I don't want to throw out the idea of titles completely (as you seem willing to do) because i think it is elemental to the sport and I don't really know what it looks like without the concept of a championship.
Look it cant be both untrue and true at the same time. That's the crux of its problem. It doesn't really mean anything.
[scratching head] WHAT can't be true and untrue at the same time?
1. If you mean linearity cannot be reestablished once broken, I disagree. It has happened many times. It usually consists of either there being only two logical candidates and they meet ( Root and Hart meeting after Jeffries retired) or if there are more, that one guy beats the hell out of enough of the rest that by acclimation (and sometimes gradually) the educated boxing public is persuaded (BHOP at 160 after Leonard had left the division or Mike Spinks consolidating things after Bob Foster retired).
2. If you mean ALL divisions must have linear champs at a point in time for the premise to work, again I disagree. Fighters retire. fighters move up and until one guy clears away the mess, however long that takes? The crown in that division is vacant. I'd argue at least ten divisions today have vacant championships.
Scratching head as to why you are scratching your head. This theory of lineal is flawed and if you ever want to debate it then start a thread.
I was scratching my head because I didn't understand your point. We are already debating it, why start a thread? Any response to my latest? And "it's imperfect" ain't much of an argument. The question is not perfection (we're humans), it is "best available."
Or sustainable. Like linear.
Sure it is sustainable, just not infinitely so. And it is FAR more sustainable than any ABC group which can simply reach in and declare a champion without any justification at all. In what way does the WBA having THREE 126 champions sustain something in a more useful way that the lineal concept? BTW, I'm out for th evening. Thanks for the conversation!
Its sustainable through a tube. Evening.
-
Re: What was Mike Tyson's greatest win ?
When did Lennox Lewis become World Champion? I know thw answer, I'm just asking
-
Re: What was Mike Tyson's greatest win ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BIG H
When did Lennox Lewis become World Champion? I know thw answer, I'm just asking
Briggs after Forman got robbed.
-
Re: What was Mike Tyson's greatest win ?
I don't normally go off the grid but Razor Ruddock and Tyson had more give and take than Tyson ever engaged in after the Loss to Douglas he was trying to establish himself once again as a holy terror and Razor was not making it easy.
