What do you prefer: a linear champion or an alphabet champion?

Exactly... people have the wrong idea that because it is said that if you are linear then you are the man who beat the man and therefore you are the real man...... they don't realize that some might call you that by default but no necessarily makes you the real man.... what I mean is that it doesn't make you the champ with more bragging rights to claim being the best, if I can use that term...

Arguello is a good example.... he was the real man at 130 during his era, but he was not the Linear Champ..... the Linear Champ was Samuel Serrano, a good boxer, but nobody recognized him as the real man, eventhough he was the man who beat the man.....

Arguello became not only the real man at 130 during his era, but also one of the best ever at 130....

In conclussion, linear belts mean nothing too.... it will depend on who you beat, and how you defend that title.....then you will get the respect..... and the right to be called the real man and not just the man who beat the man....

I preffer to becalled the real man at any weighclass than the man who beat the man....:yep

 

what would you prefer...A women or a sheep?

 

I think there's a logical dependency that in order to become linear/lineal champ you have to beat the unified champ, right?

That is, the fighter who unifies the division becomes 'the man' at that division e.g. Kostya Tszyu.

Along comes another fighter who beats him, and inherits the unified titles and becomes the linear/lineal champ at that division i.e. he carries on the linear/lineal progression of being 'the man' in that division e.g. Ricky Hatton.

Various scenarios can occur after this due to the complexities of having multiple organisations.

1. Upon unification with another recognised organisation, the WBA elevates their champion to 'Super Champ' status e.g. Mikkel Kessler after he beat Markus Beyer, taking his WBC SMW strap. This creates a vacant 'regular' WBA World SMW title e.g. Anthony Mundine beat Sam Soliman for this after Kessler had been elevated to 'Super Champ'.

However, when Kessler lost to Calzaghe, he was demoted to contender status and Anthony Mundine was recognised as being the WBA World SMW champ.

2. A unified champ may be stripped of one or more of his belts for inactivity, not fighting his mandatories or not paying sanctioning fees e.g. Kostya Tszyu stripped of his WBC and WBA JWW titles after 18 months of inactivity, Joe Calzaghe stripped of the IBF SMW belt after he beat Lacy for it because he didn't face his IBF mandatory, and Carlos Baldomir, who didn't get Judah's IBF belt because he didn't pay their sanctioning fees.

3. The linear champ moves up a division and doesn't return e.g. Joe Calzaghe moving up to LHW - his unified SMW titles splintered into 3 once again.

It all makes for a cluster****, and it is very hard to find a true linear/lineal champ these days.

Like many have said already, the fighter makes the title, not the other way around. A weak champ can hold an unprestigious title hostage and never defend it against a dangerous opponent e.g. Zsolt Erdei.

You used to be able to rely on the Ring Magazine's rankings but unfortunately the owners now have vested interestes and so we see skewed rankings, which in turn effects the value of the Ring belt.

I guess you just have to rely on following boxing and knowing who is the **** and who isn't these days.

 

The confusing **** it that isn't even true. Linear and recognized aren't one in the same.

 

Linear/Lineal - I see these as being one and the same = the man of a division

Undisputed - I see this as being the holder of all the major belts i.e the big 3 or 4 in a division - not necessarily the linear/lineal champ though!

Unified - someone who holds more than one of the major belts in a division

Recognised - **** me sideways I have no idea I'm supposing it means someone who is 'recognised' as the superior champion in a division that has no current unification of any of its major titles? Or perhaps even someone who is recognised as the man of a division depsite someone else being the unified champ?

 

I'd go with undisputed. Never heard of that in a while. Who was the last undisputed champ anyway?

 

Thanks for the explanation Bro...:good I got the same understanding...

Maybe we can also add (i always hear these type of champs);

Weak Champion

Fake Champion

Paper Champion

I dunno if you're interested to define the above Bro...
.

 

I've gone ABC!!! Only the 4th person to do so.

That's because the linear/lineal thing is too easy to get off track with.

Shannon Briggs was the heavy champ version after beating Foreman.
Is it Calzaghe at light heavy now? I kind of lost track/interest in that when Hopkins fought Pudgy Wright at 170 (from memory), and it became some bizarre form of seniors tour almost separate from the light heavy division itself.

That's not a support for the bull**** the ABC's are pulling at all. But the linear thing is just an interest thing anyway.

And if the linear champ retires - eg Lewis - it just becomes farcical trying to start again. How the **** does anyone become undisputed these days with all the bull**** that is going on?

 

This is the problem with Lineal Champs and ABC. Trainers, boxers, commentators and even fans agree that styles make fights. So, follow this progression, Cotto Beats Mosley, Margarito beats Cotto, Mosley beats Margarito. So in this instance the Lineal Champ ,Mosley, lost to Cotto. Is Cotto to fight Mosley again to become the Lineal Champ? And yes I know the ring doesn't have him rated as the lineal champ but the cyber boxing zone is, IMHO, fair in it's rankings. Besides what ever happen to the days when guys would clean out divisions? Manny chose the smallest fighter in Welter. No offense but he wouldn't have a snowballs chance in hell vs. any of the top welters,who can absorb his punches and dish out their own.

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/champ.htm

 

Wow... so Cotto is not a top welter anymore? :huh

 

i think you're lost in my avatar. The point, is that not the ABC nor Lineal Champs are accurate. Walk with me if you will. One fighter beats the MAN! He automatically becomes the Lineal Champ ?? Off of one fight?? Whereas look at Mosley and what he's done at Welter since 2000. His resume speaks for itself. He's fought the BEST of the BEST. But to just hand out a "title" for one fight in the weight class is a bit ridiculous. Same thing with the ABC as well though! Pac fights Cotto without facing maybe a Cintron or Quintana @ Welter? It's a bit ridiculous but Boxing has been in this mess for a long time and will continue. However, the Box-off at Super Middle goes a LONG WAY in bringing MORE Credibility to a TRUE Champion in the weight Class.

Would anyone here disagree with the winner of the Box off @ Super middleweight as a lineal Champ ?

 

Well, having a quick look at that site, it doesn't even rate the whole Jones, Hopkins, Tarver etc circle as even being lineal champs.

So that just highlights another issue with it. Seeing as it's essentially a made up thing, you can't even accurately track it. Who is the "lineal" champ will depend on your viewpoint. Not the case with an ABC belt.

 

Last I can recall for sure was Tszyu after he beat Judah.

But the thing is, these aren't official defined terms, they have become interchangeable over the years because the lines of demarcation between each scenario have become more blurred with the money-hungry deviousness of the major organisations (WBA with their Super Champ status for example).

 

It's crazy stuff man...

I reckon the only true definition of a Paper Champ is someone who has inherited a full title simply because the previously elevated champ loses his Super Champ title to another fighter.

See the Mikkel Kessler/Joe Calzaghe/Anthony Mundine scenario for an example:

Kessler held the WBA World SMW title, then unified it with the WBC World SMW title by beating Markus Beyer. The WBA then elevated Kessler to WBA SMW Super Champ status making the WBA World SMW title vacant.

Mundine fought Sam Soliman for this vacant WBA World SMW title and won, so the WBA had Kessler listed as their SMW Super Champ and Mundine as their SMW World champ.

Kessler then lost his Super Champ title to Calzaghe, who moved up to LHW, vacating his unified SMW titles.

Mundine remained the WBA World SMW title holder, but with Kessler having lost to Calzaghe and Calzaghe at LHW, Mundine became the WBA's only SMW World title holder and Kessler dropped to (I think) number 3 contender.

This same scenario happened when Ottke beat Byron Mitchell to unify his IBF SMW title with the WBA World SMW title. Mundine fought Echols for the vacant WBA World SMW title because Ottke had been elevated to WBA SMW Super Champ status and when Ottke retired the Super Champ status retired with him, leaving Mundine as the WBA World SMW title holder

As for weak and fake champs, I don't wanna go there!

 

My Ranking of The Belts...

1.) Linear
2.) WBC-Most corrupt Now
3.) IBF
4.) WBA
5.) WBO
6.) IBO