Jofre or Arguello, who was the true FW champ?

Amen.

 

Personally I'd question the idea that Robinson and Duran were "avoiding" Burley and Buchanan. I've not looked into the Armstrong/Cocoa Kid situation enough to voice an opinion, but in mitigation Armstrong was at least facing legitimate threats throughout his reign. But that's all for another day.

Basically, Jofre beat a guy who beat a guy who beat a guy who beat a comebacking Saldivar, who had already retired once, after which the title was fractured and never reunified. To me that doesn't make him the true champion. One of several claimants would be a better description IMO. The fact that he was stripped for not facing a mandatory and proceeded to carry on for three years without facing the top guys in the division confirms this in my eyes.

If you hold the view that Jofre was the true champ based on the lineal claim of Saldivar, do you also believe that Jack Johnson was not the true heavyweight champion in 1908 because he hadn't yet fought Jeffries? Did Jeffries' comeback invalidate Johnson's title claim (and Marvin Hart's)? Likewise would you say Ali was still the true champ in 1980? This is why I don't buy into the lineal idea, it creates too many absurdities and is as synthetic in its own way as the ABCs.

The clincher for me is that, if you follow the lineal ideal, Shannon Briggs was the true heavyweight champion in 1997, yet no one took it seriously, as Lewis and Holyfield were the consensus top guys. Having just re-watched the Briggs-Lewis fight, it's interesting that Briggs' lineal claim is not even mentioned in the pre-fight introductions.

 

And then Jeffries came back. Does his comeback mean Hart, Burns and Johnson (until 1910) were never champion on account of his lineal status?

So a sick Muhammad Ali who hadn't fought in two years was still the true champ? This is where the lineal idea gets absurd.

Not sure what your point is there?

Claimant, yes, but being the lineal champ is not the same as being the true champ.

 

The criteria is completely arbitrary. I thought the lineal title was meant to override such things?

After Ali retired the title was fractured, other champs emerged and the division wasn't re-unified until Tyson. The idea that he was still the true champ when he hadn't fought in two years and was a sick man is absurd.

He beat a guy who lost to a guy who became #1 contender... stretching it a bit, don't you think?

So Shannon Briggs was the only heavyweight that could be called the champion at the start of 1998?

 

Who determines who is lineal when the previous lineal champ has the bad grace to retire or vacate before someone can take his lineage from him? It's completely arbitrary.

I'm sure there were. There were others who said Jeffries was still the true champ when he fought Johnson. Undoubtedly there are still others who would say the 50 year old Lennox Lewis was still champion if he mounted a comeback. I can't take those claims seriously, since all had retired, been inactive for several years, new champs established, etc. Unifying the title by beating one of the dangerous WBA champs would have done more for Holmes' credibility than beating a sick old Ali, lineage be damned.

It says more about shady WBA politics than anything else that someone could earn a #1 rating by beating a fighter who was KO'd by a 13-5 journeyman and out-pointed by a 40 year old in consecutive bouts. I suspect Hernandez' high rating was more to do with his recent draw with Escalera.

You think Shannon Briggs was the true heavyweight champion. Well, we disagree and I think you'd struggle to find anyone who took his claim seriously, then or now. That particular lineage was established by 21 year old light-heavy beating a 40 year old light-heavy for a vacant title.

 

If it's arbitrary than why so much faith in it?

I can't take a championship claim seriously when the champion is clearly not meeting the best challengers. To maintain that Jofre was the true champion when he didn't meet Arguello, Chacon, Olivares, Marcel, Hernandez, Lopez et al is essentially giving him credit for not facing any of the top featherweights who might have beaten him.

Talking him up for beating someone who had lost two of his last three fights by KO is really damning him with feint praise.

Frazier's claim was only universally accepted after beating Ali, on account of Ali's enforced lay-off and having never lost his title in the ring. Two light-heavies fighting for a vacant title, and that makes the winner the lineal champion?

 

There are some circumstances when I agree with stripping titles. A champion clearly not meeting his best challenger(s) is one. I wouldn't blindly insist that someone is the 'true' champion when all common sense suggests he really isn't (like Briggs), lineal or not.

But presumably you still regard Jofre as the 'true' champion on account of him being the man who beat the man? I don't see the point of supporting such an absurdity. Jofre won a legit title against Legra, a fantastic achievement. But he only ever held a portion of the title and as far as I'm concerned he was never more than one of several 126lb champs in the 70s, and one of the less credible all things considered, certainly behind Arguello. It's not as if Arguello didn't win his title in the ring.

Olivares was a top contender and Jofre didn't fight him...

I have no problem with the two best men meeting to decide a title. I just dispute that the outcome of that fight makes the winner lineal. The winner didn't beat the previous champ so he really isn't the lineal champ in any meaningful way.

 

A champion who is basically hoarding the title and freezing out legitimate challengers who might beat him isn't much of a champion. So yes IMO there are sometimes grounds for strippage.

Jofre beat A previous champion, not THE champion. Don't see why Arguello's title win carries any less weight. Because Jofre beat a guy who beat a guy who won a vacant title and someone decided he'd created a new lineage? The "lineal" title is every bit as synthetic as the ABCs.