Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-02-2008, 03:20 AM   #16
TBooze
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: South of London
Posts: 10,886
vCash: 765
Default Re: Unified Title vs Split non Unified

Quote:
Originally Posted by teeto
I just think that lineage can be restored in a 'perfect world' where rankings are totally correct and justifiable. Lineage in terms of the world title is not the same as say in a royal family. If a lineal champion retires and his title is therefore vacated, then the correct way of restoring lineage would be for the justifiably ranked number 1 and 2 in the division to contest the beginning of a new lineage. Like i say, this would be a 'perfect world'. Also, when i say rankings, i dont mean Ring magazine rankings, if you look over boxing's history, it is possible to really see who the true champion was. I maybe wrong, i can't remember now, but when reading Charley Burley's book, i learned that (and my memory may serve me wrong) that Ken Overlin was the true champion at one point, or it may have been Soose, who beat Overlin, and lineage in my opinion followed from there, the title was being disputed at that time.
I would like to say though, that the parts of your post that i have highlighted, i strongly agree with.
I agree if you look back, you can find out THE World Champion for the era. But they are not Lineal Champions or Undisupted Champions.

As for The World Champion of the late 30s/early 40s; history suggests that Steele won The Championship; losing to Apostoli in 38; who lost to Garcia in 39; who lost to Overlin in 40; who lost to Soose in 41.

But while reigning, Apostoli lost a fight to Young CorbettIII, in a fight where CorbettIII was under 160lbs. Apostoli did win a rematch for the Championship nine months later.
TBooze is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 04-04-2012, 12:30 PM   #17
ThinBlack
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,384
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Unified Title vs Split non Unified

Sometimes, the "alphabet" holder often does more than many of the unified champs i.e Wilfredo Gomez, Larry Holmes, but it always good to have a unified holder, unfortunately in these wacky times, it's just not going to happen a lot.
ThinBlack is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2012, 12:31 PM   #18
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 37,467
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Unified Title vs Split non Unified

If you really, really like the fighter with the splintered title, you can rank him as if he was the undisputed master of the era. Otherwise, it's bad.
McGrain is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2012, 04:46 PM   #19
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,883
vCash: 330
Default Re: Unified Title vs Split non Unified

In an ideal world the two best fighters in every division would fight each other next week and we'd have 17 ring champions that had prestige because they were ring champions so much so that everyone else wanted to beat the ring champion. The media would denounce the alphabet belts and noone would call themselves a champion unless they beat the ring champion. The ring would then sponsor stonehands awesome work as a "correct lineage". If number 2 don't wanna fight they get dropped in the rankings.

As it is and as it has been for a long time in boxing, there isn't that prestige nor drive. I don't look at titles, I just decide who I think is the best title holder per division, be it ring, lineal, alphabet or other (unless we have radical cases like gamboa). That to me means more than anything else.

Man beats the man is fine in an ideal world, but in the real world we've ended up with shit like briggs at hw, erdei at lhw, red at ww etc. Lineage only works as long as it's consensus and there's a drive for it. It's currently a mythical title and unless that changes my viewpoint won't change.
lufcrazy is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2012, 06:42 PM   #20
Nightcrawler
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Canada!!!!
Posts: 2,215
vCash: 500
Default Re: Unified Title vs Split non Unified

martinez hold no title but he's the champ. it's case by case really
Nightcrawler is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2012, 07:10 PM   #21
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,883
vCash: 330
Default Re: Unified Title vs Split non Unified

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post
martinez hold no title but he's the champ. it's case by case really
He has the ring title
lufcrazy is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2012, 07:46 PM   #22
Vantage_West
ヒップホッププロデューサー
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 黒人文化の恋人のサンプリ
Posts: 10,027
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Unified Title vs Split non Unified

Quote:
Originally Posted by teeto View Post
Im not saying the title is the most important thing in terms of greatness or legacy, it isnt imo. But when solely on the topic of the championship, i normally consider the lineal title (and it is possible to trace them correctly), although i am completely knowledgeable of the alphabet titles, thats all i see them as. On saying that, i do give much credit to a titlist who sees his title as 'the championship' and defends it as if it is just that, doing so honourably and with dignity, kind of like what Felix Trinidad did with his IBF 147 pound title. It wasnt actually the lineal title, the WBC was at that time, its clear if you trace it back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teeto View Post
Correction,

Lineal= Champ
Alphabet= titlist
Undisputed= usually champ, but not a given.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teeto View Post
I just think that lineage can be restored in a 'perfect world' where rankings are totally correct and justifiable. Lineage in terms of the world title is not the same as say in a royal family. If a lineal champion retires and his title is therefore vacated, then the correct way of restoring lineage would be for the justifiably ranked number 1 and 2 in the division to contest the beginning of a new lineage. Like i say, this would be a 'perfect world'. Also, when i say rankings, i dont mean Ring magazine rankings, if you look over boxing's history, it is possible to really see who the true champion was. I maybe wrong, i can't remember now, but when reading Charley Burley's book, i learned that (and my memory may serve me wrong) that Ken Overlin was the true champion at one point, or it may have been Soose, who beat Overlin, and lineage in my opinion followed from there, the title was being disputed at that time.
I would like to say though, that the parts of your post that i have highlighted, i strongly agree with.



R.I.P. Teeto




also ****ing 2008 yo
Vantage_West is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013