What means more becoming lineal champ or undisputed

For me, usually lineal tends to be better as you get to beat the man of the division. But in most cases, being undisputed means you have to beat the top titleholders (most tend to be in the top 3 of the division) which means it's very likely that the the undisputed fighter have to face the 2nd best guy to get all 4 belts (which also means they become lineal in the process). Unless, there's a situation like the Roy Jones & Michalchevski situation where the undisputed guy never faces the lineal champ.

TLDR: most cases, undisputed if it means being lineal along the way.

 

Lineal for me. Getting undisputed is very difficult to achieve mind you, and much respect to those who have achieved it but we wouldn’t even have this conversation if there were less belts.

 

But I guess you are lineal if you are undisputed? Hmmm? Lol

 

Undisputed is better. Tyson Fury is lineal champ but we all dispute that he is the best in the division. The only way to shut it all down is to become undisputed.

 

the only weightclass floyd would be favored over crawford is 135. That is because of his weightcut.

 

If you are undisputed you are also lineal 9 times out of 10

 

yeah who has been undisputed without being lineal? Bud is now the lineal champ, no? I know the welter lineage was broken when Mayweather retired but in previous instances when the lineage is broken by retirement a new lineage begins when the 1 and 2 guy in the weight class fight each other.

 

If you're Undisputed than you're lineal champion. You mean Unified or Lineal?

 

These new boxers have too little activity.. ain't no way they're getting close to 50 fights.
Bud is 35 with 40 fights. At his rate of 1x per year, he probably has 3 fights left.

 

Mike Tyson was undisputed but not lineal until he beat Michael Spinks. Spinks won the lineal title from Larry Holmes and hadn’t lost since, but had been stripped of his belts.

 

Lineal usually means you have to faced the best in the division, so that's preferable in my opinion.

But you do have instances when the guy who is lineal isn't the best, like when Foreman was lineal.

 

Lineal means you have faced the very best of a division regarding who they beat, which is its inherent advantage. Theoretically, undisputed should have the benefit of beating "the guy" and all the top contenders. But because there are "champions" where boxers who are objectively not very good are getting belts under suspicious circumstances (Rolly Romero, for example) it is entirely possible to become a unified champion or even "undisputed" (holding all the official sanctioning body belts without beating the lineal champ - technically not really undisputed but that wouldn't stop a promoter) champion but never beating anyone actually good in the division.

The answer should be undisputed, but I will go with lineal because that's something you can only get by beating the very best in the division; sometimes only after proving you are one of the two best in the case of a division where the lineage has been broken.

 

mike tyson

 

I think there were still some people disputing tyson as the champ before he demolished spinks.

But even if not, that's an anomaly situation where the lineal champ was stripped but also did not retire. Very unusual.