The welterweight lineal title confusion

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Monogamous STD, Jun 11, 2018.


  1. Monogamous STD

    Monogamous STD Ya know, Quasimoto predicted all this. Full Member

    1,385
    132
    Mar 21, 2012
    Is this going to be accepted that Horn was lineal champion after the Pacquiao bout or not?

    Ring doesn't take Pac for winning it after Mayweather's retirement, I guess. It is currently vacant on their rankings.

    CBZ had Pacquiao winning the lineal title but it has never been updated like they flatly refused Horn's victory and let it all go without update.

    Transnational boxing, I don't see holding a champion either?

    Is there another outlet that would be taken with any credence for boxing history? What do you guys feel about this? Should it be Mayweather>Pacquiao>Horn>Crawford? (Doesn't have to mean you agree with score cards that would've caused this) This seems like a big mess.
     
  2. PernellSweetPea

    PernellSweetPea Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,137
    5,764
    Feb 26, 2009
    I am not sure why people focus on that lineal stuff. Seems a bit specific when in reality it is just a formality.
     
  3. Saintpat

    Saintpat Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    24,636
    29,380
    Jun 26, 2009
    How would Pac have become lineal after Mayweather retired?
     
  4. Monogamous STD

    Monogamous STD Ya know, Quasimoto predicted all this. Full Member

    1,385
    132
    Mar 21, 2012
    Let's look at John Ruiz holding a major title when Lennox Lewis was the lineal champion. Was the difference just a formality or was it actually a meaningful distinction?
     
  5. Monogamous STD

    Monogamous STD Ya know, Quasimoto predicted all this. Full Member

    1,385
    132
    Mar 21, 2012
    It apparently happened under the radar for a lot of people but major outlets had Pac and Bradley the next two top welterweights to establish a new lineage.
     
    Saintpat likes this.
  6. Saintpat

    Saintpat Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    24,636
    29,380
    Jun 26, 2009
    Hmmmm. I guess I never considered Bradley to be that high.
     
  7. Monogamous STD

    Monogamous STD Ya know, Quasimoto predicted all this. Full Member

    1,385
    132
    Mar 21, 2012
    I didn't either until I found out afterward that he'd been in that position but honestly when I thought about it, I wasn't sure I strongly disagreed, given what everyone had done at the time and that Mayweather took himself out of the running. What was left. . .it didn't seem unreasonable exactly, to me.
     
    Saintpat likes this.
  8. PernellSweetPea

    PernellSweetPea Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,137
    5,764
    Feb 26, 2009
    I don't think it would matter much.
     
  9. BitPlayerVesti

    BitPlayerVesti Boxing Drunkie Full Member

    8,581
    11,093
    Oct 28, 2017
    It's looks pretty obvious that they just haven't updated it. The site isn't pretty inactive, they front page still has a search that went offline in 2014.
     
  10. Monogamous STD

    Monogamous STD Ya know, Quasimoto predicted all this. Full Member

    1,385
    132
    Mar 21, 2012
    Okay, we probably don't have anything left to say to each other then.
     
  11. PernellSweetPea

    PernellSweetPea Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,137
    5,764
    Feb 26, 2009
    That is fine. I don't have to talk to anyone specifically. As for lineal. Whom you beat matters, not whether they somehow were the lineal champion in a multichampion era. Shannon Briggs was lineal champion at heavyweight. Julio Gonzales in the 1990s, and Mayorga at welterweight. How are these names significant? I think Miguel Cotto was lineal. A guy who in my mind had no business at middleweight. Wasn't that fight fought at a catchweight? Just on the catchweight alone rules mean so much, then a catchweight would damage all that tradition.