BF24 Classic world heavyweight championship: Mention the lineage

Barry Hugmans site was killed a few months back and its getting hard to access but he had lots of interesting ideas on this.

I thought about it and here would be my general ground rules.

S1.Situation with existing alphabet champs
a)I think an existing alphabet champ should get the lineal title if theres only one.
b)If theres multiple alphabet champs the alphabet champ with the "best case" should be considered lineal champ until the title can be unified. The WBA "super champ" or WBC "Diamond" champ if one exists should usually but not always get preference in this matter.
c)In case of b)alphabet champs should unify at the earliest possible date.
d)Interim champs count in the absence of other alphabet champs.
e)The public can disregard alphabet titles if they are sufficiently stupid and proceed to S2. At HW the classic case would be the WBC title between 2005-2018.

S2.Scenario where there are no alphabelt champs(get pun
a)A matchup between 2 consensus top 4 contenders. 1 v2 is needlessly arbitrary especially with at least 5 ranking systems. The winner of any matchup between 2 of the top 5 probably have a credible claim in this scenario.
b)If there are multiple type a) claims then these claims just fight each other which becomes a de facto tournament.
c)Matchup between 2 major regional champs could also be used which I consider NABF, USBA, Commonwealth and EBU.
d)Pseudo title matchups which are two world title contenders fighting for one of the type c)aformentioned belts.
e)If an African or Asian title fight meet criteria d) they would qualify as well.
f)With the exception of USBA the WBC affiliated belts should be considered the "major" regional belts for their respective continent. USBA and NABF share.
g)Basically b) but applied to c), d) and e)
h)The WBC Silver champ gets it.

S3. History
a)Before belts came into existence its more arbitary but I tend to use the number of rounds a fight is scheduled for to identify eliminators. Today this is meaningless as all meaningful fights are 12 rounds and the alphabet bodies elimns are too common but historically that was a very meaningful indictator.
b)I stop using indicator a)in 1970.
c)In the very early pre belt era sometimes title claims didn't come with belts from an official sanctioning body. These are determined by historical sources. These claims should be used like alphabet belts would be in S1.
d)I consider the following major alphabet belts historically
Police Gazette
Commonwealth prior to 1897
IBU prior to 1938.
NSC
ABA
NYSAC
NABF prior to Holmes v Norton

S4. "when does the lineal belt become vacant" per the questions asked in the original post.
1)yes
2)yes
3)yes
4a) If a lineal champ returns from retirement there are two lineal champs until the lineages are unified. There is precedent for this going back to the 1890s. Almost always this situation takes care of itself.
4b)Vitali exception where 4a) is impossible for unique circumstances the Ring selects one of the two lineages as the correct one. This exception is more applicable when both lineages are new.
5)Usually no. BUT there is a "smash glass in case of emergency" button where the lineal champ is clearly not "the champ" for an extended period of time. The classic example of this is RJJ at 175 becoming recognized as lineal champ over Michalczewski. The Ring is the most credible arbiter of this very arbitrary situation.
6)One that probably won't happen in the modern period but is technically possible is if someone goes DOWN in weight class. If a HW champ goes down in weight to 175 they lose their lineage until they return then 4) applies. If they go to 225 or 200 those are traditionally HW and the CW or BW belt becomes the HW lineage until it is taken up to HW which it inevitably will be due to the nature of the sport.
7)The public has the right to overturn any of the Rings "tiebreaks" if their decisions are sufficiently stupid. The public also has the right to take this status from Ring Magazine if their decisions are sufficiently stupid over an extended period of time.

S5.Rankings
a)While Ring magazine is the most credible ranking they are far from unfaliable both historically and today. They are just the least bad because of the absence of the systemic corruption that comes with being a sanctioning body. The Ring has really had some doozys over the years. If rankings must be used ranking systems should be used together to establish a consensus.
b)In terms of historical legacy prefer the usage of the status title contender meaning someone who fought for a world title. This title of "contender" can be used to gague the validity and credibility of arbitrary rankings. Did ranked fighters beat contenders? How many of the fighters in a given ranking fought for a title etc. Who previously fought for titles is not a good way to decide who fights for titles but it is a good way to keep the ranking system honest.

 

I support any form of community driven title. Good idea.