Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Is Wladimir Klitschko the Linear Champion?
62 views
Skip to first unread message
That SOB Van Owen
Apr 27, 2013, 1:15:54 PM4/27/13
to
He's fighting again in a week, and hasn't been defeated in almost a
decade, but I'm writing to query opinion on whether Wladimir Klitschko
is the linear heavyweight champion of the world.
It would represent a new line. Lennox Lewis, perhaps ungraciously if
you ask me, retired with Floyd Patterson's line in 2004. That line
endured nearly 50 years.
I think Wlad has done more than enough. You can pick at him for not
taking X in 2007 or Y in 2011 based on your personal preferences, but
he's fought a lot of really good opponents and there is no blazing
young Turk he can fairly be said to have run away from yet.
Neither can he be faulted in the slightest for not fighting the other,
long-time champion Vitali Klitschko because, as one or the other of
the brothers said, their mother is worth more than any purse or
championship.
So is he? What say you?
That SOB Van Owen
decade, but I'm writing to query opinion on whether Wladimir Klitschko
is the linear heavyweight champion of the world.
It would represent a new line. Lennox Lewis, perhaps ungraciously if
you ask me, retired with Floyd Patterson's line in 2004. That line
endured nearly 50 years.
I think Wlad has done more than enough. You can pick at him for not
taking X in 2007 or Y in 2011 based on your personal preferences, but
he's fought a lot of really good opponents and there is no blazing
young Turk he can fairly be said to have run away from yet.
Neither can he be faulted in the slightest for not fighting the other,
long-time champion Vitali Klitschko because, as one or the other of
the brothers said, their mother is worth more than any purse or
championship.
So is he? What say you?
That SOB Van Owen
Loki
Apr 27, 2013, 1:38:21 PM4/27/13
to
On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 13:15:54 -0400, That SOB Van Owen <spa...@not.com>
wrote:
>He's fighting again in a week, and hasn't been defeated in almost a
>decade, but I'm writing to query opinion on whether Wladimir Klitschko
>is the linear heavyweight champion of the world.
>
>It would represent a new line. Lennox Lewis, perhaps ungraciously if
>you ask me, retired with Floyd Patterson's line in 2004. That line
>endured nearly 50 years.
What was ungracious about the way Lennox Lewis retired?
wrote:
>He's fighting again in a week, and hasn't been defeated in almost a
>decade, but I'm writing to query opinion on whether Wladimir Klitschko
>is the linear heavyweight champion of the world.
>
>It would represent a new line. Lennox Lewis, perhaps ungraciously if
>you ask me, retired with Floyd Patterson's line in 2004. That line
>endured nearly 50 years.
That SOB Van Owen
Apr 27, 2013, 2:09:17 PM4/27/13
to
On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 10:38:21 -0700, Loki <email clipped> wrote:
>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 13:15:54 -0400, That SOB Van Owen <email clipped>
guy. And that only against his will.
I might be getting too cosmic, or perhaps others too terrestrial. ;)
That SOB Van Owen
>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 13:15:54 -0400, That SOB Van Owen <email clipped>
>wrote:
>
>>He's fighting again in a week, and hasn't been defeated in almost a
>>decade, but I'm writing to query opinion on whether Wladimir Klitschko
>>is the linear heavyweight champion of the world.
>>
>>It would represent a new line. Lennox Lewis, perhaps ungraciously if
>>you ask me, retired with Floyd Patterson's line in 2004. That line
>>endured nearly 50 years.
>
>What was ungracious about the way Lennox Lewis retired?
In my opinion only, a gracious champion must hand it off to the next
>
>>He's fighting again in a week, and hasn't been defeated in almost a
>>decade, but I'm writing to query opinion on whether Wladimir Klitschko
>>is the linear heavyweight champion of the world.
>>
>>It would represent a new line. Lennox Lewis, perhaps ungraciously if
>>you ask me, retired with Floyd Patterson's line in 2004. That line
>>endured nearly 50 years.
>
>What was ungracious about the way Lennox Lewis retired?
guy. And that only against his will.
I might be getting too cosmic, or perhaps others too terrestrial. ;)
That SOB Van Owen
Loki
Apr 27, 2013, 3:38:44 PM4/27/13
to
On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:09:17 -0400, That SOB Van Owen <spa...@not.com>
So it is ungracious in your mind for someone to retire as champ? I
mean, if they are relatively unhurt and have more money than they
need, they should risk serious injury for an unneeded payday?
mean, if they are relatively unhurt and have more money than they
need, they should risk serious injury for an unneeded payday?
That SOB Van Owen
Apr 27, 2013, 4:29:32 PM4/27/13
to
On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 12:38:44 -0700, Loki <email clipped> wrote:
>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:09:17 -0400, That SOB Van Owen <email clipped>
>wrote:
>>In my opinion only, a gracious champion must hand it off to the next
>>guy. And that only against his will.
That SOB Van Owen
>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:09:17 -0400, That SOB Van Owen <email clipped>
>wrote:
>>In my opinion only, a gracious champion must hand it off to the next
>>guy. And that only against his will.
>So it is ungracious in your mind for someone to retire as champ? I
>mean, if they are relatively unhurt and have more money than they
>need, they should risk serious injury for an unneeded payday?
Yes. You disagree?
>mean, if they are relatively unhurt and have more money than they
>need, they should risk serious injury for an unneeded payday?
That SOB Van Owen
Mr.Will Music
Apr 27, 2013, 6:25:28 PM4/27/13
to
"That SOB Van Owen" <spa...@not.com> wrote in message
news:gj4on8te2v407op0e...@4ax.com...
gone, he was definitely way past it......and STILL Vitali couldn't beat him.
Surely it was VITALI who was ungracious - that was his best chance to win
the "linear" tile, and blew it.
Mr.Will
DCI
Apr 27, 2013, 7:26:02 PM4/27/13
to
DCI
Loki
Apr 27, 2013, 7:49:52 PM4/27/13
to
On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 16:29:32 -0400, That SOB Van Owen <spa...@not.com>
to stick around until he loses.
wrote:
>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 12:38:44 -0700, Loki <email clipped> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:09:17 -0400, That SOB Van Owen <email clipped>
>>wrote:
>
>>>In my opinion only, a gracious champion must hand it off to the next
>>>guy. And that only against his will.
>
>>So it is ungracious in your mind for someone to retire as champ? I
>>mean, if they are relatively unhurt and have more money than they
>>need, they should risk serious injury for an unneeded payday?
>
>Yes. You disagree?
Yes. It is smart to retire while on top. A champion owes it to no one
>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 12:38:44 -0700, Loki <email clipped> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:09:17 -0400, That SOB Van Owen <email clipped>
>>wrote:
>
>>>In my opinion only, a gracious champion must hand it off to the next
>>>guy. And that only against his will.
>
>>So it is ungracious in your mind for someone to retire as champ? I
>>mean, if they are relatively unhurt and have more money than they
>>need, they should risk serious injury for an unneeded payday?
>
>Yes. You disagree?
to stick around until he loses.
That SOB Van Owen
Apr 28, 2013, 3:53:43 AM4/28/13
to
On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 16:49:52 -0700, Loki <email clipped> wrote:
>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 16:29:32 -0400, That SOB Van Owen <email clipped>
Though I am not advocating the champ to keep fighting until he finds
himself drooling and mumbling over his morning coffee, or his eyeball
sitting lopsided in his head or anything like that. If Lewis made his
retirement decision on consultation with his doctor, I'd be an ass to
call him ungracious for that.
That SOB Van Owen
>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 16:29:32 -0400, That SOB Van Owen <email clipped>
>wrote:
>>>>In my opinion only, a gracious champion must hand it off to the next
>>>>guy. And that only against his will.
>>
>>>So it is ungracious in your mind for someone to retire as champ? I
>>>mean, if they are relatively unhurt and have more money than they
>>>need, they should risk serious injury for an unneeded payday?
>>
>>Yes. You disagree?
>
>Yes. It is smart to retire while on top. A champion owes it to no one
>to stick around until he loses.
Smart, yes. Gracious, no.
>>>>In my opinion only, a gracious champion must hand it off to the next
>>>>guy. And that only against his will.
>>
>>>So it is ungracious in your mind for someone to retire as champ? I
>>>mean, if they are relatively unhurt and have more money than they
>>>need, they should risk serious injury for an unneeded payday?
>>
>>Yes. You disagree?
>
>Yes. It is smart to retire while on top. A champion owes it to no one
>to stick around until he loses.
Though I am not advocating the champ to keep fighting until he finds
himself drooling and mumbling over his morning coffee, or his eyeball
sitting lopsided in his head or anything like that. If Lewis made his
retirement decision on consultation with his doctor, I'd be an ass to
call him ungracious for that.
That SOB Van Owen
Mr.Will Music
Apr 28, 2013, 6:51:07 AM4/28/13
to
"DCI" <50b...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:57890e0f-ce01-4836...@googlegroups.com...
may have happened had the stoppage not occured. Maybe the same fans have fun
in other fights too "Gee if Audley Harrison wasn't KO'd in 70 seconds by
Deontay Wilder we think he'd have gone on to win convincingly - we're gonna
be Audley Harrison fans now".....guess it can work if you are committed
enough to it!
Mr.Will
Loki
Apr 28, 2013, 8:45:37 AM4/28/13
to
On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 03:53:43 -0400, That SOB Van Owen <spa...@not.com>
And you know that he did not because...?
Emanuel Berg
Apr 28, 2013, 10:01:28 AM4/28/13
to
That SOB Van Owen <spa...@not.com> writes:
> It would represent a new line. Lennox Lewis, perhaps ungraciously if
> you ask me, retired with Floyd Patterson's line in 2004. That line
> endured nearly 50 years.
What is a "Linear Champion"?
> It would represent a new line. Lennox Lewis, perhaps ungraciously if
> you ask me, retired with Floyd Patterson's line in 2004. That line
> endured nearly 50 years.
> Neither can he be faulted in the slightest for not fighting the
> other, long-time champion Vitali Klitschko because, as one or the
> other of the brothers said, their mother is worth more than any
> purse or championship.
them. But I think the number one reason not to do it spells health. A
distant number two is their relationship as brothers and friends.
--
Emanuel Berg - programmer (hire me! CV below)
Norge, søker jobb: http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/brev_no.pdf
computer projects: http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
internet activity: http://home.student.uu.se/embe8573
SkippyPB
Apr 28, 2013, 12:29:36 PM4/28/13
to
On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 16:01:28 +0200, Emanuel Berg
<embe...@student.uu.se> wrote:
>That SOB Van Owen <spa...@not.com> writes:
>
>> It would represent a new line. Lennox Lewis, perhaps ungraciously if
>> you ask me, retired with Floyd Patterson's line in 2004. That line
>> endured nearly 50 years.
>
>What is a "Linear Champion"?
>
The guy who beat the guy who beat the guy etc. etc. It is the
<embe...@student.uu.se> wrote:
>That SOB Van Owen <spa...@not.com> writes:
>
>> It would represent a new line. Lennox Lewis, perhaps ungraciously if
>> you ask me, retired with Floyd Patterson's line in 2004. That line
>> endured nearly 50 years.
>
>What is a "Linear Champion"?
>
championship won in the ring by fighting rather than having the belt
taken away because of politics, inactivity, whatever. The Linear
Champion started with John L. Sullivan in 1885. Wladimir Klitschko is
the current Linear Champion which he achieved in 2009 by beating
Ruslan Chagaev.
>> Neither can he be faulted in the slightest for not fighting the
>> other, long-time champion Vitali Klitschko because, as one or the
>> other of the brothers said, their mother is worth more than any
>> purse or championship.
>
>Well, I hope (and believe) their mother is worth a lot to both of
>them. But I think the number one reason not to do it spells health. A
>distant number two is their relationship as brothers and friends.
--
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
My Dictionary: Politician: One who shakes your
hand before elections and your Confidence after.
-- Unknown
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
Mr.Will Music
Apr 28, 2013, 1:25:37 PM4/28/13
to
"SkippyPB" <swie...@Nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:57jqn81356mg8a5qh...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 16:01:28 +0200, Emanuel Berg
> <embe...@student.uu.se> wrote:
>
>>That SOB Van Owen <spa...@not.com> writes:
>>
>>> It would represent a new line. Lennox Lewis, perhaps ungraciously if
>>> you ask me, retired with Floyd Patterson's line in 2004. That line
>>> endured nearly 50 years.
>>
>>What is a "Linear Champion"?
>>
>
> The guy who beat the guy who beat the guy etc. etc. It is the
> championship won in the ring by fighting rather than having the belt
> taken away because of politics, inactivity, whatever. The Linear
> Champion started with John L. Sullivan in 1885. Wladimir Klitschko is
> the current Linear Champion which he achieved in 2009 by beating
> Ruslan Chagaev.
>
Just on that didn't Marciano retire undefeated?
> <embe...@student.uu.se> wrote:
>
>>That SOB Van Owen <spa...@not.com> writes:
>>
>>> It would represent a new line. Lennox Lewis, perhaps ungraciously if
>>> you ask me, retired with Floyd Patterson's line in 2004. That line
>>> endured nearly 50 years.
>>
>>What is a "Linear Champion"?
>>
>
> The guy who beat the guy who beat the guy etc. etc. It is the
> championship won in the ring by fighting rather than having the belt
> taken away because of politics, inactivity, whatever. The Linear
> Champion started with John L. Sullivan in 1885. Wladimir Klitschko is
> the current Linear Champion which he achieved in 2009 by beating
> Ruslan Chagaev.
>
Plus with "linear" - Bowe throwing the belts away led to a whole bunch of
messing around, and didnt that end with Moorer losing to Foreman who also
retired?
So Lewis unified but was there a linear (in the minds of those whom it
matters to)?
Mr.Will
DCI
Apr 28, 2013, 2:33:23 PM4/28/13
to
On Sunday, April 28, 2013 3:51:07 AM UTC-7, Mr.Will Music wrote:
> "DCI" <50b...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:57890e0f-ce01-4836...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Saturday, April 27, 2013 3:25:28 PM UTC-7, Mr.Will Music wrote:
Cut -
> "DCI" <50b...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:57890e0f-ce01-4836...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Saturday, April 27, 2013 3:25:28 PM UTC-7, Mr.Will Music wrote:
>
> > Is this the bout in which Lewis "raked" Vitali's eye? Never felt that
>
> > issue was dealt with by officials.
>
> >
>
> > DCI
>
>
>
> Its the one which Lewis won - and Vitali got fans based on what they project
>
> may have happened had the stoppage not occured. Maybe the same fans have fun
>
> in other fights too "Gee if Audley Harrison wasn't KO'd in 70 seconds by
>
> Deontay Wilder we think he'd have gone on to win convincingly - we're gonna
>
> be Audley Harrison fans now".....guess it can work if you are committed
>
> enough to it!
>
>
>
> Mr.Will
A careful review of the tape of this bout will show Lewis thrusting his right arm forward with palm turn to Vitali's face. The result: massis "gash" of vitali's left eye. For sure it was no accident. To top it off, Lewis pulled his right arm back and down. Thus a "rake."
> > Is this the bout in which Lewis "raked" Vitali's eye? Never felt that
>
> > issue was dealt with by officials.
>
> >
>
> > DCI
>
>
>
> Its the one which Lewis won - and Vitali got fans based on what they project
>
> may have happened had the stoppage not occured. Maybe the same fans have fun
>
> in other fights too "Gee if Audley Harrison wasn't KO'd in 70 seconds by
>
> Deontay Wilder we think he'd have gone on to win convincingly - we're gonna
>
> be Audley Harrison fans now".....guess it can work if you are committed
>
> enough to it!
>
>
>
> Mr.Will
DCI
Loki
Apr 28, 2013, 6:29:13 PM4/28/13
to
On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 11:33:23 -0700 (PDT), DCI <50b...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I just watched the fight again. It was a clean shot that opened up the
cut. Lennox won fair and square.
wrote:
cut. Lennox won fair and square.
DCI
Apr 28, 2013, 8:04:39 PM4/28/13
to
Logic is your friend, history is your evidence.
DCI
Emanuel Berg
Apr 29, 2013, 3:13:34 AM4/29/13
to
SkippyPB <swie...@Nospam.neo.rr.com> writes:
> The guy who beat the guy who beat the guy etc. etc. It is the
> championship won in the ring by fighting rather than having the belt
> taken away because of politics, inactivity, whatever.
Is this regulated somehow, and if so, how? Is it for heavyweights
> The guy who beat the guy who beat the guy etc. etc. It is the
> championship won in the ring by fighting rather than having the belt
> taken away because of politics, inactivity, whatever.
only? "The guy who beat the guy..." - would run into a full circle
pretty soon. (But perhaps not in the Wlad case.)
I always thought this belt thing from a bunch of organizations was
difficult to track. I don't even know what differs all those WBO, WBC,
IBF, etc. If it matters, feel free to enlighten me...
But I don't think the top fighters care that much. They care about the
other guy in front of them. They care about money and glory (not
underestimating the glory part, especially with the elite echelon).
The last fight that got my blood *boiling* was Marquez-Pacquiao 4 -
and that wasn't even for a belt, was it?
That SOB Van Owen
Apr 29, 2013, 9:12:03 AM4/29/13
to
On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 05:45:37 -0700, Loki <email clipped> wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 03:53:43 -0400, That SOB Van Owen <email clipped>
>wrote:
>>>>Yes. You disagree?
>>>
>>>Yes. It is smart to retire while on top. A champion owes it to no one
>>>to stick around until he loses.
>>
>>Smart, yes. Gracious, no.
>>
>>Though I am not advocating the champ to keep fighting until he finds
>>himself drooling and mumbling over his morning coffee, or his eyeball
>>sitting lopsided in his head or anything like that. If Lewis made his
>>retirement decision on consultation with his doctor, I'd be an ass to
>>call him ungracious for that.
>
>And you know that he did not because...?
An article at Bleacher Report claims Emanuel Steward stated Lewis'
wife gave him an ultimatum to stop boxing. I figure if he'd incurred
health problems that made it particularly unwise to go on, that
would've come out by now.
However on reflection it's not for me or any mere fan to say
categorically that the champ who retires with his title is any less
gracious than the champ who perseveres until another boxer takes it
from him. I really didn't mean anything awful by it, more just to
homage the champ that flames out in an hard-fought defeat, but what I
said was somewhat insulting and a bit of a broad brush. I retract the
remark generally, and as it pertained to Lennox Lewis.
That SOB Van Owen
>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 03:53:43 -0400, That SOB Van Owen <email clipped>
>wrote:
>>>>Yes. You disagree?
>>>
>>>Yes. It is smart to retire while on top. A champion owes it to no one
>>>to stick around until he loses.
>>
>>Smart, yes. Gracious, no.
>>
>>Though I am not advocating the champ to keep fighting until he finds
>>himself drooling and mumbling over his morning coffee, or his eyeball
>>sitting lopsided in his head or anything like that. If Lewis made his
>>retirement decision on consultation with his doctor, I'd be an ass to
>>call him ungracious for that.
>
>And you know that he did not because...?
wife gave him an ultimatum to stop boxing. I figure if he'd incurred
health problems that made it particularly unwise to go on, that
would've come out by now.
However on reflection it's not for me or any mere fan to say
categorically that the champ who retires with his title is any less
gracious than the champ who perseveres until another boxer takes it
from him. I really didn't mean anything awful by it, more just to
homage the champ that flames out in an hard-fought defeat, but what I
said was somewhat insulting and a bit of a broad brush. I retract the
remark generally, and as it pertained to Lennox Lewis.
That SOB Van Owen
Loki
Apr 29, 2013, 10:40:47 AM4/29/13
to
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:12:03 -0400, That SOB Van Owen <spa...@not.com>
I admire your retraction Sir.
Loki
Apr 29, 2013, 10:45:40 AM4/29/13
to
But, assuming that Patterson earned the title when Marciano retired,
fast forward to Bowe who lost it to Holyfield who lost it to Moorer
who lost it to Foreman who lost it to Briggs who lost to Lewis in his
next fight.
Emanuel Berg
Apr 29, 2013, 10:51:21 AM4/29/13
to
Yeah... I think we all got your thinking, and there is nothing wrong
with it in my eyes.
Speaking generally, the last thing you'd like to be as a boxing fan is
to be part of some bloodthirsty mob, being judgmental to those guys
putting it all on the line to entertain and inspire us.
with it in my eyes.
Speaking generally, the last thing you'd like to be as a boxing fan is
to be part of some bloodthirsty mob, being judgmental to those guys
putting it all on the line to entertain and inspire us.
That SOB Van Owen
Apr 29, 2013, 11:18:50 AM4/29/13
to
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:13:34 +0200, Emanuel Berg <email clipped>
wrote:
>SkippyPB <email clipped> writes:
>
>> The guy who beat the guy who beat the guy etc. etc. It is the
>> championship won in the ring by fighting rather than having the belt
>> taken away because of politics, inactivity, whatever.
>
>Is this regulated somehow, and if so, how? Is it for heavyweights
>only? "The guy who beat the guy..." - would run into a full circle
>pretty soon. (But perhaps not in the Wlad case.)
No, presumably all weight classes have a linear champion. "Full
circle?" It's easily possible to lose and regain the linear
championship. Linear champ A loses to challenger B who then loses to C
who then is defeated by A. A doesn't have to rematch B.
SkippyPB described it well.
>I always thought this belt thing from a bunch of organizations was
>difficult to track. I don't even know what differs all those WBO, WBC,
>IBF, etc. If it matters, feel free to enlighten me...
And WBA. Each is a business doing its own sanctioning and
administering and ranking and belt-awarding and so forth. Ideally
they're checking fighters' healths and stopping vast overmatches.
They're also warning the champs to stay active, and pointing out
mandatory challengers.
>But I don't think the top fighters care that much. They care about the
>other guy in front of them. They care about money and glory (not
>underestimating the glory part, especially with the elite echelon).
Well the linear championship is pretty glorious if you ask me. The
alphabet championship also have some glory and there's the money too.
I think most top fighters make themselves students of boxing history.
Mike Tyson who's not known as a bookworm can expound at great length
and accurately about the history of his division and the greatest
fights in it.
The alphabet organizations are corruptible. Maybe champion X didn't
really earn it or super-good challenger Y keeps getting overlooked for
the title shot. Maybe Z made a payoff for the title shot. So the
linear championship is appealing in that you can't really corrupt it.
You can risk devaluing it, George Foreman fought Crawford Grimsley,
but you can't really corrupt it.
That SOB Van Owen
wrote:
>SkippyPB <email clipped> writes:
>
>> The guy who beat the guy who beat the guy etc. etc. It is the
>> championship won in the ring by fighting rather than having the belt
>> taken away because of politics, inactivity, whatever.
>
>Is this regulated somehow, and if so, how? Is it for heavyweights
>only? "The guy who beat the guy..." - would run into a full circle
>pretty soon. (But perhaps not in the Wlad case.)
circle?" It's easily possible to lose and regain the linear
championship. Linear champ A loses to challenger B who then loses to C
who then is defeated by A. A doesn't have to rematch B.
SkippyPB described it well.
>I always thought this belt thing from a bunch of organizations was
>difficult to track. I don't even know what differs all those WBO, WBC,
>IBF, etc. If it matters, feel free to enlighten me...
administering and ranking and belt-awarding and so forth. Ideally
they're checking fighters' healths and stopping vast overmatches.
They're also warning the champs to stay active, and pointing out
mandatory challengers.
>But I don't think the top fighters care that much. They care about the
>other guy in front of them. They care about money and glory (not
>underestimating the glory part, especially with the elite echelon).
alphabet championship also have some glory and there's the money too.
I think most top fighters make themselves students of boxing history.
Mike Tyson who's not known as a bookworm can expound at great length
and accurately about the history of his division and the greatest
fights in it.
The alphabet organizations are corruptible. Maybe champion X didn't
really earn it or super-good challenger Y keeps getting overlooked for
the title shot. Maybe Z made a payoff for the title shot. So the
linear championship is appealing in that you can't really corrupt it.
You can risk devaluing it, George Foreman fought Crawford Grimsley,
but you can't really corrupt it.
That SOB Van Owen
SkippyPB
Apr 29, 2013, 11:37:55 AM4/29/13
to
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:13:34 +0200, Emanuel Berg
<embe...@student.uu.se> wrote:
>SkippyPB <swie...@Nospam.neo.rr.com> writes:
>
>> The guy who beat the guy who beat the guy etc. etc. It is the
>> championship won in the ring by fighting rather than having the belt
>> taken away because of politics, inactivity, whatever.
>
>Is this regulated somehow, and if so, how? Is it for heavyweights
>only? "The guy who beat the guy..." - would run into a full circle
>pretty soon. (But perhaps not in the Wlad case.)
>
>I always thought this belt thing from a bunch of organizations was
>difficult to track. I don't even know what differs all those WBO, WBC,
>IBF, etc. If it matters, feel free to enlighten me...
>
>But I don't think the top fighters care that much. They care about the
>other guy in front of them. They care about money and glory (not
>underestimating the glory part, especially with the elite echelon).
>
>The last fight that got my blood *boiling* was Marquez-Pacquiao 4 -
>and that wasn't even for a belt, was it?
For many, many years there was only 1 belt (for heavyweights). Things
<embe...@student.uu.se> wrote:
>SkippyPB <swie...@Nospam.neo.rr.com> writes:
>
>> The guy who beat the guy who beat the guy etc. etc. It is the
>> championship won in the ring by fighting rather than having the belt
>> taken away because of politics, inactivity, whatever.
>
>Is this regulated somehow, and if so, how? Is it for heavyweights
>only? "The guy who beat the guy..." - would run into a full circle
>pretty soon. (But perhaps not in the Wlad case.)
>
>I always thought this belt thing from a bunch of organizations was
>difficult to track. I don't even know what differs all those WBO, WBC,
>IBF, etc. If it matters, feel free to enlighten me...
>
>But I don't think the top fighters care that much. They care about the
>other guy in front of them. They care about money and glory (not
>underestimating the glory part, especially with the elite echelon).
>
>The last fight that got my blood *boiling* was Marquez-Pacquiao 4 -
>and that wasn't even for a belt, was it?
got muddied when all of the alphabet organizations came into being.
However, you can still follow the linage no matter whose belt they
win.
Regards,
--
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
DCI
Apr 29, 2013, 11:54:56 AM4/29/13
to
On Monday, April 29, 2013 8:37:55 AM UTC-7, SkippyPB wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:13:34 +0200, Emanuel Berg
>
> <embe...@student.uu.se> wrote:
>
>
>
> >SkippyPB <swie...@Nospam.neo.rr.com> writes:
>
> >
>
> >> The guy who beat the guy who beat the guy etc. etc. It is the
>
> >> championship won in the ring by fighting rather than having the belt
>
> >> taken away because of politics, inactivity, whatever.
>
> >
>
> >Is this regulated somehow, and if so, how? Is it for heavyweights
>
> >only? "The guy who beat the guy..." - would run into a full circle
>
> >pretty soon. (But perhaps not in the Wlad case.)
>
> >
>
> >I always thought this belt thing from a bunch of organizations was
>
> >difficult to track. I don't even know what differs all those WBO, WBC,
>
> >IBF, etc. If it matters, feel free to enlighten me...
>
> >
>
> >But I don't think the top fighters care that much. They care about the
>
> >other guy in front of them. They care about money and glory (not
>
> >underestimating the glory part, especially with the elite echelon).
>
> >
>
> >The last fight that got my blood *boiling* was Marquez-Pacquiao 4 -
>
> >and that wasn't even for a belt, was it?
>
>
>
> For many, many years there was only 1 belt (for heavyweights). Things
>
> got muddied when all of the alphabet organizations came into being.
>
> However, you can still follow the linage no matter whose belt they
>
> win.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Steve
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:13:34 +0200, Emanuel Berg
>
> <embe...@student.uu.se> wrote:
>
>
>
> >SkippyPB <swie...@Nospam.neo.rr.com> writes:
>
> >
>
> >> The guy who beat the guy who beat the guy etc. etc. It is the
>
> >> championship won in the ring by fighting rather than having the belt
>
> >> taken away because of politics, inactivity, whatever.
>
> >
>
> >Is this regulated somehow, and if so, how? Is it for heavyweights
>
> >only? "The guy who beat the guy..." - would run into a full circle
>
> >pretty soon. (But perhaps not in the Wlad case.)
>
> >
>
> >I always thought this belt thing from a bunch of organizations was
>
> >difficult to track. I don't even know what differs all those WBO, WBC,
>
> >IBF, etc. If it matters, feel free to enlighten me...
>
> >
>
> >But I don't think the top fighters care that much. They care about the
>
> >other guy in front of them. They care about money and glory (not
>
> >underestimating the glory part, especially with the elite echelon).
>
> >
>
> >The last fight that got my blood *boiling* was Marquez-Pacquiao 4 -
>
> >and that wasn't even for a belt, was it?
>
>
>
> For many, many years there was only 1 belt (for heavyweights). Things
>
> got muddied when all of the alphabet organizations came into being.
>
> However, you can still follow the linage no matter whose belt they
>
> win.
>
>
> Regards,
>
Ah, a breath of history and a bit of wisdom.
DCI
Mr.Will Music
Apr 29, 2013, 2:26:53 PM4/29/13
to
"Loki" <cubby...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:gn1tn8hbt5j21r33u...@4ax.com...
retired, but yes I remember it now!
Mr.Will
That SOB Van Owen
Apr 29, 2013, 3:19:29 PM4/29/13
to
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 07:45:40 -0700, Loki <email clipped> wrote:
>But, assuming that Patterson earned the title when Marciano retired,
>fast forward to Bowe who lost it to Holyfield who lost it to Moorer
>who lost it to Foreman who lost it to Briggs who lost to Lewis in his
>next fight.
I don't think there's much assumption there, but I'll yield to anyone
>But, assuming that Patterson earned the title when Marciano retired,
>fast forward to Bowe who lost it to Holyfield who lost it to Moorer
>who lost it to Foreman who lost it to Briggs who lost to Lewis in his
>next fight.
who can remember it.
This is why history regards Shannon Briggs as a good champion. He wins
it from a guy who has been playing around a bit, and immediately goes
after the biggest dog in the yard.
That SOB Van Owen
Loki
Apr 29, 2013, 4:30:49 PM4/29/13
to
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:19:29 -0400, That SOB Van Owen <spa...@not.com>
wrote:
As I recall, Foreman by that time was becoming a thorn in the
division. He was defending whatever claim to the title he had, very
rarely, against has been's and never were's and getting gift
decisions.
As I saw the Briggs fight, I thought they were both pretty awful, but
that Foreman had done enough to win. (Again, I am going strictly from
memory... The fight was not good enough to waste another hour of my
life re watching it). However, since a title change would put it in
the hands of someone bound to be more active, and get George out of
boxing before he got hurt, no one had any serious objections to the
outcome.
wrote:
division. He was defending whatever claim to the title he had, very
rarely, against has been's and never were's and getting gift
decisions.
As I saw the Briggs fight, I thought they were both pretty awful, but
that Foreman had done enough to win. (Again, I am going strictly from
memory... The fight was not good enough to waste another hour of my
life re watching it). However, since a title change would put it in
the hands of someone bound to be more active, and get George out of
boxing before he got hurt, no one had any serious objections to the
outcome.
Emanuel Berg
Apr 30, 2013, 1:45:53 PM4/30/13
to
> Well the linear championship is pretty glorious if you ask me. The
> alphabet championship also have some glory and there's the money
> too. I think most top fighters make themselves students of boxing
> history. Mike Tyson who's not known as a bookworm can expound at
> great length and accurately about the history of his division and
> the greatest fights in it.
Yes, there are certainly boxers who contemplate boxing history (and
> alphabet championship also have some glory and there's the money
> too. I think most top fighters make themselves students of boxing
> history. Mike Tyson who's not known as a bookworm can expound at
> great length and accurately about the history of his division and
> the greatest fights in it.
their places in in). Ali read every boxing book he could find. For
Tyson it was also a matter of learning as he was often up against
taller guys, so he studied how past champions had that solved.
Still, I think the glory fighters seek is much more "present". They
want to show the other guy they are the superior fighter, and they
want their fans in ecstasy after the fight, their countrymen meeting
them at the airport, all those things.
Thanks for the info on the organizations.
sugarl...@gmail.com
May 2, 2013, 7:56:50 PM5/2/13
to
On Monday, April 29, 2013 4:30:49 PM UTC-4, Loki wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:19:29 -0400, That SOB Van Owen <spa...@not.com> wrote: >On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 07:45:40 -0700, Loki <email clipped> wrote: > >>But, assuming that Patterson earned the title when Marciano retired, >>fast forward to Bowe who lost it to Holyfield who lost it to Moorer >>who lost it to Foreman who lost it to Briggs who lost to Lewis in his >>next fight. > >I don't think there's much assumption there, but I'll yield to anyone >who can remember it. > >This is why history regards Shannon Briggs as a good champion. He wins >it from a guy who has been playing around a bit, and immediately goes >after the biggest dog in the yard. As I recall, Foreman by that time was becoming a thorn in the division. He was defending whatever claim to the title he had, very rarely, against has been's and never were's and getting gift decisions. As I saw the Briggs fight, I thought they were both pretty awful, but that Foreman had done enough to win. (Again, I am going strictly from memory... The fight was not good enough to waste another hour of my life re watching it). However, since a title change would put it in the hands of someone bound to be more active, and get George out of boxing before he got hurt, no one had any serious objections to the outcome.
Where does Tommy Morrison fit in all this? The guy never had AIDS but was much maligned, anyway.
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:19:29 -0400, That SOB Van Owen <spa...@not.com> wrote: >On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 07:45:40 -0700, Loki <email clipped> wrote: > >>But, assuming that Patterson earned the title when Marciano retired, >>fast forward to Bowe who lost it to Holyfield who lost it to Moorer >>who lost it to Foreman who lost it to Briggs who lost to Lewis in his >>next fight. > >I don't think there's much assumption there, but I'll yield to anyone >who can remember it. > >This is why history regards Shannon Briggs as a good champion. He wins >it from a guy who has been playing around a bit, and immediately goes >after the biggest dog in the yard. As I recall, Foreman by that time was becoming a thorn in the division. He was defending whatever claim to the title he had, very rarely, against has been's and never were's and getting gift decisions. As I saw the Briggs fight, I thought they were both pretty awful, but that Foreman had done enough to win. (Again, I am going strictly from memory... The fight was not good enough to waste another hour of my life re watching it). However, since a title change would put it in the hands of someone bound to be more active, and get George out of boxing before he got hurt, no one had any serious objections to the outcome.
DCI
May 2, 2013, 9:43:12 PM5/2/13
to
DCI
sugarl...@gmail.com
May 2, 2013, 9:51:17 PM5/2/13
to
Tommy Morrison fit in all this? The guy never had AIDS but was much maligned, anyway. Morrison sort of reminded me of a huge Jerry Quarry, never quite getting "there." DCI
Can roger that.
Edmund
May 3, 2013, 6:59:47 PM5/3/13
to
On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 13:15:54 -0400, That SOB Van Owen wrote:
> He's fighting again in a week, and hasn't been defeated in almost a
> decade, but I'm writing to query opinion on whether Wladimir Klitschko
> is the linear heavyweight champion of the world.
>
> He's fighting again in a week, and hasn't been defeated in almost a
> decade, but I'm writing to query opinion on whether Wladimir Klitschko
> is the linear heavyweight champion of the world.
>
> It would represent a new line. Lennox Lewis, perhaps ungraciously if you
> ask me, retired with Floyd Patterson's line in 2004. That line endured
> nearly 50 years.
>
> I think Wlad has done more than enough. You can pick at him for not
> ask me, retired with Floyd Patterson's line in 2004. That line endured
> nearly 50 years.
>
> taking X in 2007 or Y in 2011 based on your personal preferences, but
> he's fought a lot of really good opponents and there is no blazing young
> Turk he can fairly be said to have run away from yet.
>
> Neither can he be faulted in the slightest for not fighting the other,
> long-time champion Vitali Klitschko because, as one or the other of the
> brothers said, their mother is worth more than any purse or
> championship.
>
> So is he? What say you?
> Neither can he be faulted in the slightest for not fighting the other,
> long-time champion Vitali Klitschko because, as one or the other of the
> brothers said, their mother is worth more than any purse or
> championship.
>
>
> That SOB Van Owen
These Klitschko brothers are very limited in skills but they making the
most out of it. They always come in in good shape and the lack of any
competition in the heavyweight helps a lot too.
What they do very clever too is boxing in there home town only and
bringing in there home referees, which NEVER EVER even warn them for
imitating an octopus.
I tried viewing a few times but so far I always fell asleep.
I try again tomorrow.
Edmund
Emanuel Berg
May 3, 2013, 7:24:29 PM5/3/13
to
Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com> writes:
> These Klitschko brothers are very limited in skills ... What they do
referees (if that ever was a sustainable option). They have fought all
over the world. This was one of the lamest posts I've ever read.
> These Klitschko brothers are very limited in skills ... What they do
> very clever too is boxing in there home town only and bringing in
> there home referees ... I tried viewing a few times but so far I
> always fell asleep. I try again tomorrow.
Both are skilled in so many ways. They are not relying on home town
referees (if that ever was a sustainable option). They have fought all
over the world. This was one of the lamest posts I've ever read.
DCI
May 3, 2013, 9:39:59 PM5/3/13
to
On Friday, May 3, 2013 4:24:29 PM UTC-7, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>
>
> > These Klitschko brothers are very limited in skills ... What they do
>
> > very clever too is boxing in there home town only and bringing in
>
> > there home referees ... I tried viewing a few times but so far I
>
> > always fell asleep. I try again tomorrow.
>
>
>
> Both are skilled in so many ways. They are not relying on home town
>
> referees (if that ever was a sustainable option). They have fought all
>
> over the world. This was one of the lamest posts I've ever read.
>
>
The Klitschko brothers have done well. Opponents get hung on the end of their long, penetrating, stiff jabs just can't prevail. Game over.
> Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>
>
> > These Klitschko brothers are very limited in skills ... What they do
>
> > very clever too is boxing in there home town only and bringing in
>
> > there home referees ... I tried viewing a few times but so far I
>
> > always fell asleep. I try again tomorrow.
>
>
>
> Both are skilled in so many ways. They are not relying on home town
>
> referees (if that ever was a sustainable option). They have fought all
>
> over the world. This was one of the lamest posts I've ever read.
>
>
DCI
That SOB Van Owen
May 4, 2013, 4:44:54 PM5/4/13
to
On Fri, 3 May 2013 18:39:59 -0700 (PDT), DCI <email clipped> wrote:
>On Friday, May 3, 2013 4:24:29 PM UTC-7, Emanuel Berg wrote:
>On Friday, May 3, 2013 4:24:29 PM UTC-7, Emanuel Berg wrote:
>> Edmund <email clipped> writes:
>>
>> > These Klitschko brothers are very limited in skills ... What they do
>>
>> > very clever too is boxing in there home town only and bringing in
>>
>> > there home referees ... I tried viewing a few times but so far I
>>
>> > always fell asleep. I try again tomorrow.
>>
>>
>>
>> Both are skilled in so many ways. They are not relying on home town
>>
>> referees (if that ever was a sustainable option). They have fought all
>>
>> over the world. This was one of the lamest posts I've ever read.
>>
>>
>The Klitschko brothers have done well. Opponents get hung on the end of their long, penetrating, stiff jabs just can't prevail. Game over.
Well, as you have said, each of them will eventually lose the game, as
>>
>> > These Klitschko brothers are very limited in skills ... What they do
>>
>> > very clever too is boxing in there home town only and bringing in
>>
>> > there home referees ... I tried viewing a few times but so far I
>>
>> > always fell asleep. I try again tomorrow.
>>
>>
>>
>> Both are skilled in so many ways. They are not relying on home town
>>
>> referees (if that ever was a sustainable option). They have fought all
>>
>> over the world. This was one of the lamest posts I've ever read.
>>
>>
>The Klitschko brothers have done well. Opponents get hung on the end of their long, penetrating, stiff jabs just can't prevail. Game over.
long as they keep fighting.
Wlad started fighting Francesco Pianeta about 5 minutes ago I think. I
watched the first and last rounds of him boxing Oliver McCall last
year. McCall, 48, who once defeated and was defeated by Lennox Lewis,
was out-of-shape and overweight. From one who is hesitant to criticize
a boxer on such things, McCall looked painfully out-of-shape,
overweight, and old. And at the end paced and circled and waited and
refused to box, evidently not mentally prepared to do so. Pianeta
decisioned him in 10.
I also saw the weigh-in for Klitscho and Pianeta. They both were in
shape, but Klitschko's the bigger man, and has a long history of
demonstrably the more accomplished and better boxer.
I started this thread trying to nail down who is the linear champion
at this time. Would it be fair to say, after all their near-decade of
victories never able to fight each other, that the Klitchsko brothers
share the linear championship?
That SOB Van Owen
DCI
May 4, 2013, 9:28:22 PM5/4/13
to
Sometimes a proffered comment in posts such as your seems to generate folks just going off in all directions. Could be that in this current post, folks don't know who the real linear heavyweight champion is. I gave up trying figure it out years ago.
DCI
sugarl...@gmail.com
May 5, 2013, 12:25:09 PM5/5/13
to
On Saturday, May 4, 2013 9:28:22 PM UTC-4, DCI wrote:
> On Saturday, May 4, 2013 1:44:54 PM UTC-7, That SOB Van Owen wrote: > On Fri, 3 May 2013 18:39:59 -0700 (PDT), DCI <email clipped> wrote: > > > > >On Friday, May 3, 2013 4:24:29 PM UTC-7, Emanuel Berg wrote: > > >> Edmund <email clipped> writes: > > >> > > >> > These Klitschko brothers are very limited in skills ... What they do > > >> > > >> > very clever too is boxing in there home town only and bringing in > > >> > > >> > there home referees ... I tried viewing a few times but so far I > > >> > > >> > always fell asleep. I try again tomorrow. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Both are skilled in so many ways. They are not relying on home town > > >> > > >> referees (if that ever was a sustainable option). They have fought all > > >> > > >> over the world. This was one of the lamest posts I've ever read. > > >> > > >> > > >The Klitschko brothers have done well. Opponents get hung on the end of their long, penetrating, stiff jabs just can't prevail. Game over. > > > > Well, as you have said, each of them will eventually lose the game, as > > long as they keep fighting. > > > > Wlad started fighting Francesco Pianeta about 5 minutes ago I think. I > > watched the first and last rounds of him boxing Oliver McCall last > > year. McCall, 48, who once defeated and was defeated by Lennox Lewis, > > was out-of-shape and overweight. From one who is hesitant to criticize > > a boxer on such things, McCall looked painfully out-of-shape, > > overweight, and old. And at the end paced and circled and waited and > > refused to box, evidently not mentally prepared to do so. Pianeta > > decisioned him in 10. > > > > I also saw the weigh-in for Klitscho and Pianeta. They both were in > > shape, but Klitschko's the bigger man, and has a long history of > > demonstrably the more accomplished and better boxer. > > > > I started this thread trying to nail down who is the linear champion > > at this time. Would it be fair to say, after all their near-decade of > > victories never able to fight each other, that the Klitchsko brothers > > share the linear championship? > > > > That SOB Van Owen Mr. Van Owen, Sometimes a proffered comment in posts such as your seems to generate folks just going off in all directions. Could be that in this current post, folks don't know who the real linear heavyweight champion is. I gave up trying figure it out years ago. DCI
Back in 1974, maybe 1973, the NBA became the WBA in order to combat the WBC which formed out of the ashes of the NY and other groups in the champion-recognition business. When Don King muscled in, Arum got going as did the many lesser copycats, with chaos reigning ever since.
> On Saturday, May 4, 2013 1:44:54 PM UTC-7, That SOB Van Owen wrote: > On Fri, 3 May 2013 18:39:59 -0700 (PDT), DCI <email clipped> wrote: > > > > >On Friday, May 3, 2013 4:24:29 PM UTC-7, Emanuel Berg wrote: > > >> Edmund <email clipped> writes: > > >> > > >> > These Klitschko brothers are very limited in skills ... What they do > > >> > > >> > very clever too is boxing in there home town only and bringing in > > >> > > >> > there home referees ... I tried viewing a few times but so far I > > >> > > >> > always fell asleep. I try again tomorrow. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Both are skilled in so many ways. They are not relying on home town > > >> > > >> referees (if that ever was a sustainable option). They have fought all > > >> > > >> over the world. This was one of the lamest posts I've ever read. > > >> > > >> > > >The Klitschko brothers have done well. Opponents get hung on the end of their long, penetrating, stiff jabs just can't prevail. Game over. > > > > Well, as you have said, each of them will eventually lose the game, as > > long as they keep fighting. > > > > Wlad started fighting Francesco Pianeta about 5 minutes ago I think. I > > watched the first and last rounds of him boxing Oliver McCall last > > year. McCall, 48, who once defeated and was defeated by Lennox Lewis, > > was out-of-shape and overweight. From one who is hesitant to criticize > > a boxer on such things, McCall looked painfully out-of-shape, > > overweight, and old. And at the end paced and circled and waited and > > refused to box, evidently not mentally prepared to do so. Pianeta > > decisioned him in 10. > > > > I also saw the weigh-in for Klitscho and Pianeta. They both were in > > shape, but Klitschko's the bigger man, and has a long history of > > demonstrably the more accomplished and better boxer. > > > > I started this thread trying to nail down who is the linear champion > > at this time. Would it be fair to say, after all their near-decade of > > victories never able to fight each other, that the Klitchsko brothers > > share the linear championship? > > > > That SOB Van Owen Mr. Van Owen, Sometimes a proffered comment in posts such as your seems to generate folks just going off in all directions. Could be that in this current post, folks don't know who the real linear heavyweight champion is. I gave up trying figure it out years ago. DCI
Maybe just one more alphabet outfit can lasso all the others, just one more.
Loki
May 5, 2013, 12:34:59 PM5/5/13
to
On Sun, 5 May 2013 09:25:09 -0700 (PDT), sugarl...@gmail.com
The problem was that the alphabets were in competition with each other
and instead of pushing for title unification, they fought it every
step of the way. That was why the linear title had credence. Even
though it may not always be the best guy, he was the people's champion
who gained his title the old fashioned way, by beating a champion. Not
by being appointed by a political board.
and instead of pushing for title unification, they fought it every
step of the way. That was why the linear title had credence. Even
though it may not always be the best guy, he was the people's champion
who gained his title the old fashioned way, by beating a champion. Not
by being appointed by a political board.
sugarl...@gmail.com
May 6, 2013, 5:01:57 PM5/6/13
to
On Sunday, May 5, 2013 12:34:59 PM UTC-4, Loki wrote:
> On Sun, 5 May 2013 09:25:09 -0700 (PDT), sugarl...@gmail.com wrote: >On Saturday, May 4, 2013 9:28:22 PM UTC-4, DCI wrote: >> On Saturday, May 4, 2013 1:44:54 PM UTC-7, That SOB Van Owen wrote: > On Fri, 3 May 2013 18:39:59 -0700 (PDT), DCI <email clipped> wrote: > > > > >On Friday, May 3, 2013 4:24:29 PM UTC-7, Emanuel Berg wrote: > > >> Edmund <email clipped> writes: > > >> > > >> > These Klitschko brothers are very limited in skills ... What they do > > >> > > >> > very clever too is boxing in there home town only and bringing in > > >> > > >> > there home referees ... I tried viewing a few times but so far I > > >> > > >> > always fell asleep. I try again tomorrow. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Both are skilled in so many ways. They are not relying on home town > > >> > > >> referees (if that ever was a sustainable option). They have fought all > > >> > > >> over the world. This was one of the lamest posts I've ever read. > > >> > > >> > > >The Klitschko brothers have done well. Opponents get hung on the end of their long, penetrating, stiff jabs just can't prevail. Game over. > > > > Well, as you have >said, each of them will eventually lose the game, as > > long as they keep fighting. > > > > Wlad started fighting Francesco Pianeta about 5 minutes ago I think. I > > watched the first and last rounds of him boxing Oliver McCall last > > year. McCall, 48, who once defeated and was defeated by Lennox Lewis, > > was out-of-shape and overweight. From one who is hesitant to criticize > > a boxer on such things, McCall looked painfully out-of-shape, > > overweight, and old. And at the end paced and circled and waited and > > refused to box, evidently not mentally prepared to do so. Pianeta > > decisioned him in 10. > > > > I also saw the weigh-in for Klitscho and Pianeta. They both were in > > shape, but Klitschko's the bigger man, and has a long history of > > demonstrably the more accomplished and better boxer. > > > > I started this thread trying to nail down who is the linear champion > > at this time. Would it be fair to say, after all their near-decade of > > victories never able >to fight each other, that the Klitchsko brothers > > share the linear championship? > > > > That SOB Van Owen Mr. Van Owen, Sometimes a proffered comment in posts such as your seems to generate folks just going off in all directions. Could be that in this current post, folks don't know who the real linear heavyweight champion is. I gave up trying figure it out years ago. DCI > > >Back in 1974, maybe 1973, the NBA became the WBA in order to combat the WBC which formed out of the ashes of the NY and other groups in the champion-recognition business. When Don King muscled in, Arum got going as did the many lesser copycats, with chaos reigning ever since. > >Maybe just one more alphabet outfit can lasso all the others, just one more. The problem was that the alphabets were in competition with each other and instead of pushing for title unification, they fought it every step of the way. That was why the linear title had credence. Even though it may not always be the best guy, he was the people's champion who gained his title the old fashioned way, by beating a champion. Not by being appointed by a political board.
As DCI indicated, tracking down the "linears" is not worth the time it would take. Of course, yet another alphabet outfit could never help the situation.
> On Sun, 5 May 2013 09:25:09 -0700 (PDT), sugarl...@gmail.com wrote: >On Saturday, May 4, 2013 9:28:22 PM UTC-4, DCI wrote: >> On Saturday, May 4, 2013 1:44:54 PM UTC-7, That SOB Van Owen wrote: > On Fri, 3 May 2013 18:39:59 -0700 (PDT), DCI <email clipped> wrote: > > > > >On Friday, May 3, 2013 4:24:29 PM UTC-7, Emanuel Berg wrote: > > >> Edmund <email clipped> writes: > > >> > > >> > These Klitschko brothers are very limited in skills ... What they do > > >> > > >> > very clever too is boxing in there home town only and bringing in > > >> > > >> > there home referees ... I tried viewing a few times but so far I > > >> > > >> > always fell asleep. I try again tomorrow. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Both are skilled in so many ways. They are not relying on home town > > >> > > >> referees (if that ever was a sustainable option). They have fought all > > >> > > >> over the world. This was one of the lamest posts I've ever read. > > >> > > >> > > >The Klitschko brothers have done well. Opponents get hung on the end of their long, penetrating, stiff jabs just can't prevail. Game over. > > > > Well, as you have >said, each of them will eventually lose the game, as > > long as they keep fighting. > > > > Wlad started fighting Francesco Pianeta about 5 minutes ago I think. I > > watched the first and last rounds of him boxing Oliver McCall last > > year. McCall, 48, who once defeated and was defeated by Lennox Lewis, > > was out-of-shape and overweight. From one who is hesitant to criticize > > a boxer on such things, McCall looked painfully out-of-shape, > > overweight, and old. And at the end paced and circled and waited and > > refused to box, evidently not mentally prepared to do so. Pianeta > > decisioned him in 10. > > > > I also saw the weigh-in for Klitscho and Pianeta. They both were in > > shape, but Klitschko's the bigger man, and has a long history of > > demonstrably the more accomplished and better boxer. > > > > I started this thread trying to nail down who is the linear champion > > at this time. Would it be fair to say, after all their near-decade of > > victories never able >to fight each other, that the Klitchsko brothers > > share the linear championship? > > > > That SOB Van Owen Mr. Van Owen, Sometimes a proffered comment in posts such as your seems to generate folks just going off in all directions. Could be that in this current post, folks don't know who the real linear heavyweight champion is. I gave up trying figure it out years ago. DCI > > >Back in 1974, maybe 1973, the NBA became the WBA in order to combat the WBC which formed out of the ashes of the NY and other groups in the champion-recognition business. When Don King muscled in, Arum got going as did the many lesser copycats, with chaos reigning ever since. > >Maybe just one more alphabet outfit can lasso all the others, just one more. The problem was that the alphabets were in competition with each other and instead of pushing for title unification, they fought it every step of the way. That was why the linear title had credence. Even though it may not always be the best guy, he was the people's champion who gained his title the old fashioned way, by beating a champion. Not by being appointed by a political board.
It would be nice to see a return of Kickboxing, MMA having become more wrestling than anything else, or as the dilettantes call it: "grappling."
0 new messages