For how long do you consider Wlad to have been the true HW champ?

Wow. You are an even bigger idiot than I thought. Why wouldn't the Ring name Rahman as their champion? He had just beaten the Lineal champion in Lennox Lewis.

1 + 1 = 2

By chance, did your mom smoke Crack while pregnant with you?

 

This isn't entirely true. There were a few boxing media types who rightfully ridiculed Jones' "reign" at LHW...

 

Problem is being the true champion does not mean you are the best. It means you beat the current champion. So many decades of multiple champions and 40 plus top 10 contenders has ruined boxing. It's very rare that you can really point to one fighter as the champion who truely beat the fighter who was the true champion. Back in the 80s there was strong talk of government control of boxing to try and rectify all the **** that has now destroyed the sport. I was against it at that time. Not any more. We need some outside force to step in and bring the sport back to its roots. Government control via people who know boxing history is the only way we get this sport back to some symbolence of normalcy.

 

No, but you aren't one of the posters arguing lineal as the apex of achievement and standing, and unfairly applying the concept to modern times as measuring stick without context because they dislike Wlad or GGG or whoever.

I think lineal is a flawed and rather worthless concept, going back to the 40s when well managed, connected, or just plain lucky fighters used it to shut out the true greats of the era while milking their lottery win.

 

We should stay firm to an extent but not just accept a lineal champ. Wlad's reign is impressive not because he was IBF champ after beating Byrd but because he cleared out 90% of the division after establishing himself as the man after beating Byrd.

 

To RING it was the #1 vs #8 guy. Now...

Shhhhhh

The grown ups are talking now. Plenty of time for rhetorical questions and stock insults later.

 

Lol.

No, it wasn't the #1 vs #8 guy you idiot. It was the LINEAL Champion vs #8 guy.

1 + 1 = 2

I can now confirm that your mom was smoking the Crack rock while carrying you.

 

Really in another era, they would have already had Byrd fight Rahman or Toney to establish a new champion after Vitali and Sanders both retired.

But yeah, Wlad vs Peter 2 wasn't made for the simple reason, Peter had better options than losing to Wlad again. He instead had the WBC title to chase. A common road block in making fights between top fighters.

I think it's oddly similar to Weaver and Holmes.

I do agree, but it's not just the bodies, it's the boxers too. Because you have fighters like Lesnevich, 90s Foreman and now Stevenson that are capable of unfairly milking a long reign out of poor to middling competition. At that point, someone has to step in and say, lineal or not, you are out.

 

RING didn't recognize any lineal claim Or special champion status in 2001.

Lewis was simply number 1.

Please provide a source, where RING rates Lewis as lineal champion and not 1 prior to Rahman..we Will all wait.

RING decided they wanted to have their own champions in 2001, and just set it up so the division stars would be rewarded after meaningless fights. Thats why they gave the belt to Jones jr, you idiot. RING had no interest in lineal claims, they wanted to get their belts in their number one rated guy. You know nothing.

 

Congratulations on arguing about something you don't care about than, what a lifestyle.

Lol....

 

Nor should they have.

Liston didn't become the logical contender until Patterson defended the title against Ingo in their third fight.

Patterson only fought one tune up before Liston, who than got suspended. So Listons wait gets exaggerated, nothing like we have today or the privileged champs of the 40s.

Ingo was the biggest road block for Liston. He leap frogged him with the Machen blow out and than claimed the title to drag Patterson inti a grueling trilogy.