Yet another way to Understand the Lineal

[billeau2]

I want to show how the Lineal can exist while being implicit and not explicit. This will answer the question: "Why aren't people screaming from the rooftops regarding the Lineal if it exists?

Contracts are often implicit. No contract can exist with no "consideration", something of value to exchange for the goods and/or ,services offered in a contract. You do not sign a contract when a plumber comes over... It is "Implicit" understood that you will pay a fee for your pipes being fixed. Nobody has to make it explicit right?

Cus Amato allegedlly told Mike Tyson that "A Boxing Ring is the only place homicide is legal." As citizens of America, with inalienable rights, we cannot simply construct a magical boxing ring and declare homicide legal... Just as we do not have to make explicit our rights when we exorscize them, an actual boxing match has obligations that go along with the right to suspend what would otherwise be a capitol offense against another citizen. Again, imagine you have an argument with a neighbor and both of you decide to construct a ring and claim you were "boxing" if anyone dies... How far would that get you in a court of law?

Boxing comes from Duels and THIS IS KEY to understanding the lineal: Duels had implicit rules to be followed. Nobody had to tell participants, you cannot ambush your opponent the night before the duel, you cannot show emotional outbursts, you cannot dress like a tramp, you cannot use a weapon that gives you an unfair advantage... etc, etc. Nobody would claim that these rules did not exist because they were not stated! On the contrary, the rules that were stated were just an adjunct, made to ultimately reinforce that which was implicit.

A duel was, a social contract. Citizens all enter into such a contract, which is alas, implicit as well. In return for the roads, policing power of government, I pay taxes and act accordingly... If I lose my life in a duel, my status is never the less retained due to the implicit purpose of the duel...

Boxing as understood in the West came from this social tradition. The difference was, it came to be understood that a fighter was essentially a stand in, a champion representing the people who supported him. No boxers ever were allowed to step in a boxing ring with the express purpose of killing another man. Homicide, as a consequence was purely allowed as part of a contract....at least eventually when boxing was allowed as a sport.

Boxers were competing for Titles. Titles are status, they only retain their power, in so far as they are recognized by others! Isn't this why we lampoon fools like Charlie Z? Who created his own title, Belt? The truth is: These belts mean nothing without a contract with some group that recognizes the Titles. We call this group "boxing fans."

The Lineal is, in a sense, a social contract that permits a man to literally kill another, provided he enters into an implicit contract, a social contract recognized by the state as legitimate. The other part of this contract is the reason for the fighter's activity. A fighter does not go into the ring for blood lust, rather there is a mutual respect for fellow fighters, and it is understood that the fight is for glory... Glory as our own Marchegiano has researched, comes form Greek ideals related to the Olympics... Fans are absolutely necessary to recognize Glory, because without fans there can be no Glory.

Boxing replaced a system where maintaining status, the original ideal behind duels, was replaced by fighting for the aprobation of the public, the fans. And it has always been IMPLICIT that the consideration (contract) in a boxing match was a chance to fight to be the best as recognized by? Those bestowing glory upon the fighters.

The lineal is the social contract that is always in force. It provides consideration, a service, and a process to determine to whom the winnings go.

Finally: Why is the lineal not cited? If I get pulled over for a traffic stop and a cop is polite, I have no reason to cite my rights. I know some i d i o t s behave otherwise... But a normal intelligent person, when a cop is not violating a right, generally do not preface the social contract governing police power and citizens... Does not mean the contract is not in force now does it? The lineal only needs to be explicit at times when it is violated, or needs to be interpreted. The lineal alone obligated that, at least in the Heavyweight division, there be an undisputed champion at some point, who got there beating the best contender. And the basis for this authority is our implicit contract as fans, with the fighters who compete for our approval.

[Coverdale]

Great post, unfortunately some people are incapable of accepting abstract arguments.

[billeau2]

Great post, unfortunately some people are incapable of accepting abstract arguments.

That is true and ok... I hope everyone strives to be knowlegable and compassionate. After all, before the term was coopted for political warfare, a ******* was a well educated, compassionate individual.

[billeau2]

Intersting aside and example: I studied Confucian Chinese Ethics and the whole idea behind language and ritual in Confucian Chinese terms is our innate ability to learn. When we respond with a series of gestures, like a handshake, handing a glass of beer down a line in a ballpark and knowing the money for the beer will be delivered down that same line to pay for that beer, these actions cannot really be learned, or taught... They have to be internalized because they are so many components to these actions it would be impossible to teach them all. Same with language, it cannot be taught from the environment because the actual rules of grammer are substantial. A child is born understanding syntax and language structure.

In a ballpark, even a thief would not take the money, or the beer because they understand they are part of a set of actions that demand a proper response (pass the money and beer down the line), that is part of human nature.

So when we discuss the implicit aspects of status and how the lineal achieves such, in many respects it is not natural to deconstruct such a process. Human nature is such we want glory and status. The lineal merely describes what that status looks like and how it is to be attained.

[Marchegiano]

Approved but I won't have time to type much until tomorrow.

[billeau2]

This is my final effort. People are alas entitled to believe what they wish. I do think it is important we know why things exist... Or if they are in fact a mere chimera.

So here is a little ditty: The Catholic Priest asked the Aboriginal about Heaven and God and the Lineal title... The Priest said "My champion is the man who beats the best, thus he becomes the best boxer! My God gives us eternal life in heaven! What does your champion and your God do?

The Aboriginal, we will call him kafkod smiled and said "Wow! let me meet your God and champion! what a magnificent group they must be!" The Priest thinking for a moment said "Wellll you really cannot see my God any more than you can see the belt on my Lineal champ... But he is there!" To which the Aboriginal then pointed in two directions and said "You see all those boxers flailing about? they all have a clan and are clan champions! we do not even have contenders we are all so good!" The priest shook his head in approval for this fine group of champions! after all who needed to beat the best anyway with so many champs? The second place the Aboriginal pointed was over the hills wence he said "And as for my God? I can tell you with absolute certainty he will rise in the East in exactly two hours, and set in the West at an exact time as well!"

And so it was established that only that which is explicit can be said to exist. Belts, Sashes... Governing bodies. And alas the sun and the moon is what we can know...

[kafkod]

I want to show how the Lineal can exist while being implicit and not explicit. This will answer the question: "Why aren't people screaming from the rooftops regarding the Lineal if it exists?

Contracts are often implicit. No contract can exist with no "consideration", something of value to exchange for the goods and/or ,services offered in a contract. You do not sign a contract when a plumber comes over... It is "Implicit" understood that you will pay a fee for your pipes being fixed. Nobody has to make it explicit right?

Cus Amato allegedlly told Mike Tyson that "A Boxing Ring is the only place homicide is legal." As citizens of America, with inalienable rights, we cannot simply construct a magical boxing ring and declare homicide legal... Just as we do not have to make explicit our rights when we exorscize them, an actual boxing match has obligations that go along with the right to suspend what would otherwise be a capitol offense against another citizen. Again, imagine you have an argument with a neighbor and both of you decide to construct a ring and claim you were "boxing" if anyone dies... How far would that get you in a court of law?

Boxing comes from Duels and THIS IS KEY to understanding the lineal: Duels had implicit rules to be followed. Nobody had to tell participants, you cannot ambush your opponent the night before the duel, you cannot show emotional outbursts, you cannot dress like a tramp, you cannot use a weapon that gives you an unfair advantage... etc, etc. Nobody would claim that these rules did not exist because they were not stated! On the contrary, the rules that were stated were just an adjunct, made to ultimately reinforce that which was implicit.

A duel was, a social contract. Citizens all enter into such a contract, which is alas, implicit as well. In return for the roads, policing power of government, I pay taxes and act accordingly... If I lose my life in a duel, my status is never the less retained due to the implicit purpose of the duel...

Boxing as understood in the West came from this social tradition. The difference was, it came to be understood that a fighter was essentially a stand in, a champion representing the people who supported him. No boxers ever were allowed to step in a boxing ring with the express purpose of killing another man. Homicide, as a consequence was purely allowed as part of a contract....at least eventually when boxing was allowed as a sport.

Boxers were competing for Titles. Titles are status, they only retain their power, in so far as they are recognized by others! Isn't this why we lampoon fools like Charlie Z? Who created his own title, Belt? The truth is: These belts mean nothing without a contract with some group that recognizes the Titles. We call this group "boxing fans."

The Lineal is, in a sense, a social contract that permits a man to literally kill another, provided he enters into an implicit contract, a social contract recognized by the state as legitimate. The other part of this contract is the reason for the fighter's activity. A fighter does not go into the ring for blood lust, rather there is a mutual respect for fellow fighters, and it is understood that the fight is for glory... Glory as our own Marchegiano has researched, comes form Greek ideals related to the Olympics... Fans are absolutely necessary to recognize Glory, because without fans there can be no Glory.

Boxing replaced a system where maintaining status, the original ideal behind duels, was replaced by fighting for the aprobation of the public, the fans. And it has always been IMPLICIT that the consideration (contract) in a boxing match was a chance to fight to be the best as recognized by? Those bestowing glory upon the fighters.

The lineal is the social contract that is always in force. It provides consideration, a service, and a process to determine to whom the winnings go.

Finally: Why is the lineal not cited? If I get pulled over for a traffic stop and a cop is polite, I have no reason to cite my rights. I know some i d i o t s behave otherwise... But a normal intelligent person, when a cop is not violating a right, generally do not preface the social contract governing police power and citizens... Does not mean the contract is not in force now does it? The lineal only needs to be explicit at times when it is violated, or needs to be interpreted. The lineal alone obligated that, at least in the Heavyweight division, there be an undisputed champion at some point, who got there beating the best contender. And the basis for this authority is our implicit contract as fans, with the fighters who compete for our approval.

You have a talent for writing interesting posts while, at the same time, fundamentally misunderstanding what a lineal champion is supposed to be!

Lineal champions in boxing are not a development of the chivalric honour code which spawned duels.

Duels were fought by aristocrats, military officers and wealthy elites who aspired to the military/chivalric ideal. Those same elites enjoyed watching, staging and betting on fist fights between husky men from the "lower orders" - farm labourers, blacksmiths, etc, and, in the US, black slaves.

Boxing, as we know it today, developed from those prizefights between poor working class whites and black slaves, not from the duels fought by the elites who staged and bet on those prizefights.

[billeau2]

You have a talent for writing interesting posts while, at the same time, fundamentally misunderstanding what a lineal champion is supposed to be!

Lineal champions in boxing are not a development of the chivalric honour code which spawned duels.

Duels were fought by aristocrats, military officers and wealthy elites who aspired to the military/chivalric ideal. Those same elites enjoyed watching, staging and betting on fist fights between husky men from the "lower orders" - farm labourers, blacksmiths, etc, and, in the US, black slaves.

Boxing, as we know it today, developed from those prizefights between poor working class whites and black slaves, not from the duels fought by the elites who staged and bet on those prizefights.

I know your reading comprehension lacks, but if you could read and understand what was written you would notice how I made a solid historical connection to the working class. You embarass yourself when you have such an oversight. It is in the threads and very clearly articulated... Unfortunately for you.

Everything comes from something... Traditions develop... We have no Zoology with no Aristotle, No Einstein with no Ptolemy. Boxing made inroads to the poor through channels and these are described in detail... Don't believe me, don't read my posts, do your own research.

[Marchegiano]

This is my final effort. People are alas entitled to believe what they wish. I do think it is important we know why things exist... Or if they are in fact a mere chimera.

So here is a little ditty: The Catholic Priest asked the Aboriginal about Heaven and God and the Lineal title... The Priest said "My champion is the man who beats the best, thus he becomes the best boxer! My God gives us eternal life in heaven! What does your champion and your God do?

The Aboriginal, we will call him kafkod smiled and said "Wow! let me meet your God and champion! what a magnificent group they must be!" The Priest thinking for a moment said "Wellll you really cannot see my God any more than you can see the belt on my Lineal champ... But he is there!" To which the Aboriginal then pointed in two directions and said "You see all those boxers flailing about? they all have a clan and are clan champions! we do not even have contenders we are all so good!" The priest shook his head in approval for this fine group of champions! after all who needed to beat the best anyway with so many champs? The second place the Aboriginal pointed was over the hills wence he said "And as for my God? I can tell you with absolute certainty he will rise in the East in exactly two hours, and set in the West at an exact time as well!"

And so it was established that only that which is explicit can be said to exist. Belts, Sashes... Governing bodies. And alas the sun and the moon is what we can know...

Ooooo this one changes things though


I had every intent on outlining exactly how much the fans protected champions, you know, from beginning to end.


It seems ****** obvious now, but I honestly never thought once to just condense all the bull to fan respect and cross recognition.



You can argue all you like who is or isn't lineal because this rule or that precedence or if it is real or not because of its origins and post dating nature, but the man fans respected most is easy.

Likewise, I don't ask "does lineal have any mechanism for unpopular fighters to be champion on in-ring merit alone?" because I know that it doesn't. It's an earnest question that is simply me making allowances for having missed something.

None once ever have any suggested it does. I've never had any lineal pundit from any side of the argument tell me lineal has any way of allowing sporting achievement alone.

This all seems to line up MUCH more comfortably than man with the best claim, man who beat the man, victor between 1 and 2, and so on past adages that attempt to capture the honor in a short but encompassing phrase.

This would even rectify claimants, disputed titles, or simply unrecognized champions far better than any other depiction of lineal I've already spoken to.

On that, maybe i should find and link those threads rather than allude to them. Not everyone knows the traditions just because the boys at BS do


Bill I think there at the end you hit the clincher.

Like as in bro, I feel both elated that you might have a logic here that is unbreakable and so, good for you, good for boxing, I'm excited to see it tested in open waters for lack of any better term. Also, I am so ****ing frustrated I can't nitpick any flaw in this logic and how it aligns with history.


Recently I made a few Englishmen cry for talking about how we kind of change terms and meanings to suit us to recognize champions. That's true. If you ask me who is the best boxer in England in 1728 I will tell you Whitaker, maybe Peartree, without checking any notes. These men I placed on champions' lists and never once has any objected. I list them to published historians and get no rejection of the thought if champion means best then Whitaker was champion.

But if you ask me who has the fan's respect, that's Fiigg. Who is consensus champion until his death in 1730.

Let's do one more closer to what the boys know well:

Fitzsimmons, I OFTEN drop the fact that Fitzs is a x2 HW champion. Kinda true but he isn't a x2 most respected man in the division is he? Corbett rides the acting years fine under your lineal. Does not matter a bit he retired. The fans didn't care anymore than we care about a Fury retirement/comeback.

I did mention unrecognized champions, a few pet projects of mine tbh. Robert Delany, I think the year is 1864, I'd have to check to be sure. Point is he was, for the last year of his life, the "Best man in England" but not the champion. I left him out of the conspiracy thread because that was really about Spring and I kinda forgot my dude Delaney. As in the only new info I actually dropped in that thread was about Spring. The rest of it is well known, documented, discussed on this forum, subjects been tossed about since at least the 90s.

But the fact is Bob was black and therefor could not be given the English title. Was not English enough. Rather than "champion" they called him best. So if you ask me 1864 England, who is best, I say Bob, but you clever ****er you, even vacancy can be the thing fans respect most. My modern sensibilities have no play here.

John L never won a QB fight to be QB champion, but, fan respect though. He simply didn't have to and if that bothers you bro that's your suitcase (more cuban than rican it turns out, really thought it was ours, don't care, using it still, cubans are just commy ricans anyway)

We can keep going but I've already made a mountain to plant a flag on I think.


Here' the cross to that jab though:

It does not matter if Kaf doesn't recognize lineal in any fashion or that you do, as individuals and on an individual level. But one must make allowances for one to be mistaken and outright refusal to recognize recognition itself is not logic, it's closemindedness.

I feel no need to explore that through history, it is philosophical not factual. Whole different rabbithole but men of some level of any academic integrity must allow for the proposition they are wrong in my estimate.

I do, however, think it is important to point out that works for the bodies too. Recognition is recognition and no logic can destroy the state of it.

Likewise I feel the need to express, this definition of lineal, fan respect, takes with it all the biases found in the times and does make heroes of nationalists, rapists, gangs, corrupt politicians, pedophiles, and so on.


I can find no fault in it and the verbiage doesn't really matter. There was never a time when you could ask me who is the most respected boxer in 1888 and I didn't answer John L.

I'm excited to see it bounced off others. If you don't, I will. In a long and exhaustive format too

Drop all that grandiose bull**** pontification nonsense and simply claim fan respect, cite the community of boxing, call her a day, let me know when that somehow breaks consensus.

[billeau2]

Ooooo this one changes things though


I had every intent on outlining exactly how much the fans protected champions, you know, from beginning to end.


It seems ****** obvious now, but I honestly never thought once to just condense all the bull to fan respect and cross recognition.



You can argue all you like who is or isn't lineal because this rule or that precedence or if it is real or not because of its origins and post dating nature, but the man fans respected most is easy.

Likewise, I don't ask "does lineal have any mechanism for unpopular fighters to be champion on in-ring merit alone?" because I know that it doesn't. It's an earnest question that is simply me making allowances for having missed something.

None once ever have any suggested it does. I've never had any lineal pundit from any side of the argument tell me lineal has any way of allowing sporting achievement alone.

This all seems to line up MUCH more comfortably than man with the best claim, man who beat the man, victor between 1 and 2, and so on past adages that attempt to capture the honor in a short but encompassing phrase.

This would even rectify claimants, disputed titles, or simply unrecognized champions far better than any other depiction of lineal I've already spoken to.

On that, maybe i should find and link those threads rather than allude to them. Not everyone knows the traditions just because the boys at BS do


Bill I think there at the end you hit the clincher.

Like as in bro, I feel both elated that you might have a logic here that is unbreakable and so, good for you, good for boxing, I'm excited to see it tested in open waters for lack of any better term. Also, I am so ****ing frustrated I can't nitpick any flaw in this logic and how it aligns with history.


Recently I made a few Englishmen cry for talking about how we kind of change terms and meanings to suit us to recognize champions. That's true. If you ask me who is the best boxer in England in 1728 I will tell you Whitaker, maybe Peartree, without checking any notes. These men I placed on champions' lists and never once has any objected. I list them to published historians and get no rejection of the thought if champion means best then Whitaker was champion.

But if you ask me who has the fan's respect, that's Fiigg. Who is consensus champion until his death in 1730.

Let's do one more closer to what the boys know well:

Fitzsimmons, I OFTEN drop the fact that Fitzs is a x2 HW champion. Kinda true but he isn't a x2 most respected man in the division is he? Corbett rides the acting years fine under your lineal. Does not matter a bit he retired. The fans didn't care anymore than we care about a Fury retirement/comeback.

I did mention unrecognized champions, a few pet projects of mine tbh. Robert Delany, I think the year is 1864, I'd have to check to be sure. Point is he was, for the last year of his life, the "Best man in England" but not the champion. I left him out of the conspiracy thread because that was really about Spring and I kinda forgot my dude Delaney. As in the only new info I actually dropped in that thread was about Spring. The rest of it is well known, documented, discussed on this forum, subjects been tossed about since at least the 90s.

But the fact is Bob was black and therefor could not be given the English title. Was not English enough. Rather than "champion" they called him best. So if you ask me 1864 England, who is best, I say Bob, but you clever ****er you, even vacancy can be the thing fans respect most. My modern sensibilities have no play here.

John L never won a QB fight to be QB champion, but, fan respect though. He simply didn't have to and if that bothers you bro that's your suitcase (more cuban than rican it turns out, really thought it was ours, don't care, using it still, cubans are just commy ricans anyway)

We can keep going but I've already made a mountain to plant a flag on I think.


Here' the cross to that jab though:

It does not matter if Kaf doesn't recognize lineal in any fashion or that you do, as individuals and on an individual level. But one must make allowances for one to be mistaken and outright refusal to recognize recognition itself is not logic, it's closemindedness.

I feel no need to explore that through history, it is philosophical not factual. Whole different rabbithole but men of some level of any academic integrity must allow for the proposition they are wrong in my estimate.

I do, however, think it is important to point out that works for the bodies too. Recognition is recognition and no logic can destroy the state of it.

Likewise I feel the need to express, this definition of lineal, fan respect, takes with it all the biases found in the times and does make heroes of nationalists, rapists, gangs, corrupt politicians, pedophiles, and so on.


I can find no fault in it and the verbiage doesn't really matter. There was never a time when you could ask me who is the most respected boxer in 1888 and I didn't answer John L.

I'm excited to see it bounced off others. If you don't, I will. In a long and exhaustive format too

Drop all that grandiose bull**** pontification nonsense and simply claim fan respect, cite the community of boxing, call her a day, let me know when that somehow breaks consensus.

A lot to unpack here in a good way. Let me paint some broad strokes first: To say that the fans do not know who the best is necessarily for there to be a Lineal (lets just call it that for the sake of clarity shall we?) Is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. To say there are chauvanistic forces at work, like the color line, nationality, that also make thelineal imperfect is also absolutely correct. No, the lineal is far from perfect. I can also see how perhaps in arguing for it I might be misunderstood as claiming the lineal is perfect... But you will give me some credit on this account? I have been very deliberate about not saying the lineal is BETTER, than other titles, merely saying it is different with a different base of power. So your points are well taken and hopefully add more understanding to the Lineal, w arts and all.

An analogy might be Affirmative Action. In San Francisco when I was teaching High School there was Lowell High School, the academically elite public school. If Lowell did not use some "scale" some affirmative action mechanism virtually all the students would be Asian. Some people were ok with this, others see it as a necessary reason for affirmative action. Here is the point: In this case? Affirmative action may not be perfect (like the lineal) But until we get something more fair, it acts as a means to be fair and provide a somewhat multicultural environment for kids.

The bolded: Agreed. Totally.

I think the alignment with history is important because it gives us a sense of why it exists in the first place. See that is the difference between you and Kafkod IMO. You acknowledge points, contribute points, which show that the idea can be discussed logically and ultimately someone can take their own informed POV on the subject. I do not want to put you at odds with Kafkod, but I wanted to make sure I was not assuming anything about your pov.

And we also agree on a lot of points, like those raised above. Fans do not have a mechanism that foreshadows "the real best fighters." Fans can only know what they see and are told by other fans and the world for most of human history has been a much bigger place... I mean, Australia had British convicts fighting everyday, great fighters like Darcy came out of there, but how could their fan base contribute to the lineal? And even in the ranks of thoise known, we have the color line to consider and we have the subtleties that might well make a recognizable fighter inferior to a fighter who has not had the chance because of fan backing (circular logic there lol).