Why do people say "Lineal" when they mean "Ring"

So in your opinion, in your mind, there hasn't been a Lineal Heavyweight Champ since Lennox Lewis?

 

The whole idea of a lineal champion is that it does NOT care about belts! If a fighter unites all the belts it does not necessarily mean he's considered a lineal champion. A new lineage is considered to start when a #1 rated fighter and #2 rated fighter of a division square off. Even with no belt on the line the winner would be considered the lineal champion.

 

Shadow111 is somewhar obsessed when it comes to the "lineal" title. He's got a drawer full of his own rules that "count" wrt the matter, that he won't show anybody else. Check out his defence of Canelo being the lineal 160 champion for more information The lineal title is by now a matter of opinion, nothing more.

 

What about Tyson Fury? You're making the same argument that Golovkin's people are trying to make about not having to fight Canelo to be Lineal.

I'm not trying to argue with you, I understand your principled position and I'm not saying you're wrong for your beliefs, I'm just explaining to you in reality, Wladimir has been known as the Lineal Champion since 2009 and Fury won it from him in 2015. It's complicated because first of all there was no chance at the time of the Brothers fighting each other, so having an undisputed champion was not a possibility. That may have contributed to why Wlad was crowned Lineal Champ in 2009 by fighting and beating Chagaev. (who became "The Man" so to speak by doing the impossible and beating Valuev and becoming the WBA Champ)

Can I ask you, who do you consider to be the Lineal Champion at Middleweight? Martinez was the Lineal Champion, who lost to Cotto, who lost to Canelo. Canelo's the Man Who Beat the Man Who Beat the Man right?

 

LOL I think everybody's got their own definition of what a Lineal Champion is, including you. I'm actually just informing you as to who the Lineal Champion actually is rather than turning it into a free-for-all where the Lineal Title is just some made up imaginary thing like you're trying to do. You're doing this because you are a Triple G fan who hates Canelo and it really really bothers you that Canelo is the Lineal Champion, so you've gone out here and done everything you can to brainwash people into thinking that the Lineal Title is just a made up thing that doesn't matter. (because Canelo is Lineal champion) Likewise, since Canelo is also the Ring Champion, you mock that too and basically act like that's just a made up title as well. Anything to make what Canelo has achieved "imaginary" lmao.

 

Well, I'd already considered that, and since Jeffries came back in 1910 (with many still proclaiming him the real champ) and lost to Jack Johnson, I think Johnson then can claim that same lineage.

.

I agree. A new lineage starts. And there's no hard and fast rule as to how and where it starts.
Some say "when #1 fights #2", some say "when all the belts are unified", and some just crown any outstanding #1 world heavyweight as the new lineage.
All these methods are acceptable.

 

What made Wlad Vs Chagaev deserving?

 

The WBC is worth nothing and becoming worse, they just made a new belt for El Pollo! WBC made an inactive, fat, over the hill, old Stiverne #1 in the world! Anyone knows better than that. The WBC truly believes boxing fans are very stupid......................

 

This is the truth of the matter.

Some people accept retirement, some do not.

Some people accept vacating, some do not.

Some people accept 1v2, some do not.

Until a respectable organisation gets enough mainstream following people will always have differing opinions.

 

Chagaev was the WBA Champ. Wladimir was the IBF, WBO, and IBO Champ.

 

No, the idea of the lineal championship is that the belts are usless because they're usually influenced by the action of corrupt sanctioning organizations.

If the #1 and #2 fighter square off for the REAL CHAMPIONSHIP then what does it matter who holds a worthless WBC or WBA belt? When Vitali (#1) fought Sanders (#2), was the winner less of a deserving lineal champion because a joke like John Ruiz held the WBA belt?

Boxing fans and experts do that. There are times when there is a big consensus as to who are the two strongest fighters in a division.

Tyson vs. Holyfield in the 1990s
Vitali vs. Sanders in the 2000s
Wlad Klitschko vs. Povetkin in the 2010s

Your talk of "The Ringratings" and "unified belts" is your personal opinion. I respect that but most old-school boxing fans don't share it.

 

Yeah the WBC Title that Triple G got handed over illegitimately is worth nothing. Being the Man who Beat the Man who Beat the Man, being the Man of a Division is much more important.

 

Vitali was the WBC champ.