Can a new lineage be established while the current lineal champ is still active?

Fighter A.


And the answer to the thread title is No.

 

I guess you're referencing Pac at 140 and Bradley possibly unifying?

My2Sense has answered perfectly :good

 

Agreed, and that is that.

 

Fighter A is linear but its interesting and Fighter A certainly is certainly a disputed champ. Juan Diaz unified all belts while Casamayor was the linear champ. Tyson unified all belts while Spinks was linear.

In both these cases people argued about who was numero uno

 

Yeah, this has happened a few times, as with Roy Jones and Michaczevski (sorry about the spelling), you are right about who is numero uno being debatable, as in who is the best, but there is no debate as to who is lineal champion, it's Fighter A. It's a **** situation when a champion sits on his lineal title and doesn't do the right thing, but that's just the way it is sometimes.

 

I think Linear is fairly pointless in this day in age..It was relevant in a day when there was only one champ and the torch was past from one champ to the next.

But with the alphabet soup its all gone to hell.

 

Its 1 of the most relevant titles these days, thats why Hatton was 140lb no1, why Pavlik is 160lb no1 etc

 

So you think Zsolt Erdei is the no1 light heavy in the world? Or DM was when Roy was in the same divvy?

You think Byron Mitchell was the best in the division when he was lineal supermiddle champ or that Pac had anymore of a claim to best in the division over Too Sharp when he was at fly?

I like the idea of the lineal in principle because back in the day it did actually mean you were the best in your division but I think there needs to be some change of the way its decided on...or at least IMO its importance in the modern day.

 

There should be a fight between #1 & #2 contenders. Maybe they've already fought, but a rematch is in order to establish linearity.

 

Why would you need to unify four titles to be linear? That was never true before.

Basically the way it has worked historically in terms of strength of claim:

Win either one of the following two titles to establish a claim to the championship: NBA/NYSAC or later WBA/WBC.

Unify NBA/NYSAC or later WBA/WBC titles to establish a stronger claim or the world championship in the absence of a world champion. However, if there is a linear champion, you cannot be champion. There cannot be two champions simultaneous. Either there is one or none.

I emphasize holding all the belts or none of the belts makes you champion. The historically important belts are WBA and WBC. It doesn't matter whether they have a corrupt history or whatever. Boxing is about history, legacy, and tradition.

Beat the man whom the consensus position built upon facts in light of lineage NOT popularity establishes as champion. That's how you become world champion.

So, to answer the question, if there is a linear champion, there can be no other legitimate champion, only claims on the title, disputes that should be resolved in the ring or by lengthy retirements (short ones don't count).

You got to beat the man to be the man!!!!!