Dawson VS Pascal for Ring Belt??

There is NO lineal title at lt heavy.

Dawson should already be the ring champion.


Keith

 

Technically, there is. It's gone:

• Virgil Hill (1996 - 1997)
• Dariusz Michalczewski (1997-2003)
• Julio Cesar Gonzalez (2003-2004)
• Zsolt Erdei (2004-present)

The Ring is not in sync with it however. If you only count Ring magazine, which stops here and there with their lineage while someone else is considered to have taken over, then Calzaghe left the title vacant. But there's a break between the largely accepted lineage after Spinks which starts with Hill, and the Ring's proposed post-Spinks lineage which starts with RJJ which is a very large gap between 1985 and 2001! As it is, Hill's start leaves the gap at 85-96. It's become very complicated, Keith.

 

Who did Hill beat to win the lineal title at lt heavy.

Or are you saying the lt heavy division started in 1996???


The so called lineal title is just as arbitrary and full of **** as any other belt.

You picke the fighter you like, and then trace back his title reing until a title was vacated and declare him the champ.

It's a big line of bull****, used only by people trying to hype up their favorite fighter or denegrate another one.


Keith

 

Well, now you're being silly, Keith. I said post-Spinks. As for everything else I offer you a patsch. atsch


Boxed Ears (because no one can look slightly to the left and see who's making the comments, apparently)

 

In fact MOST title lineages nowadays lead to bull**** fighters, as one guy in the line wins the "title" then ducks good fighter until he eventually loses to some **** fighter, who in noway and shape would earn a real fight with the good fighters at the time. (see Axel Schultz, Crawford Grimsely and Lou Savarese against Foreman who was ducking Lewis then Nicky Piper, Zenner and Magi for Dm). Then that shitty fighter loses to another shitty fighter and so on.


Meanwhile no one who knows anything about boxing ranks the guy even close to the top of the division.

Keith

 

Extra sanctioning fees are needed still

 

No I am just illustrating how silly the lineal "title" thing is at all.


Why was Hill EVER the lineal champ at all?? He never unifed all of the belts, he sure as hell didn't beat Spinks for them (thus no LINE) and never even beat Hearns who beat him. He had to pick up Hearns strap he left behind.

It's completely arbitrary to name Hill the "lineal champ". He did not unify the division, nor did he beat the champ before him to get his belt EITHER TIME.

Keith

 

Well when you fight guys like George Blades, Danny Santiago and Tito Mendoza its kinda understandable when people just want to forget about you.

 

WBA and IBF unification with undefeated Maske, I believe. He'd also been the long reigning WBA champ by the time that happened. He was considered the man. If you think it's bull****, that's your business. I don't care either way. :yep

 

Yeah, he unfied 2/3's of the belts. HE was an interrupted WBA champ who was dethroned by Hearns, then got the belt back AFTER Hearns vacated.

Where does any of this make him the LINEAL successor to Michael Spinks?

Also, where does being considered the "man" at a weight give you calim to a lineal title?


Keith

 

He also beat that French gay who ended up winning the WBC belt before the unification with Maske. So in a sense he "won" all the belts. It's sort of like the scenario in when Larry Holmes won The Ring title in a fight he wasn't involved in.

KOTF (because I can)

 

Really, that's spurrious logic at best. So Jones became the WBO champ when Gonzales beat DM because he Gonzales a few years earlier?

Is this the logic we are using?

That is a lot of hoops to CREATE a lineal champ.

And just proves my earlier point, the lineal champion thing is a bull**** dump.


Keith

 

1 vs 2 can get the belt if the ppl in charge find it a suitable matchup in this case in my opinion it does seem legitiment that or hopkins

 

If you're trying to argue that NEW LINEAGES can't be made, then let's just junk the entire sport on account of no new consensus champions possible. It's pointless. Everyone's just a paper titlist now, because the lineage of all the weight classes has been broken at least once, hasn't it? I don't know. Again, if you think it's bull****, it's your choice. I don't. It makes sense to me. I'm sorry it doesn't make sense to you. Of course "sorry" wouldn't be a genuine word in that last sentence. But who says "I'm apathetic if that doesn't make sense to you."? That doesn't sound right, does it? :hi:

 

Who says because there are no more lineal champions that we need to junk the sport?

I never said that, I never implied that, I never caim close.

Then you confuse consensus champions with lineal champions.

Chad Dawson is pretty much the consensus champion at Lt heavy. Just as Martinez is at middle. Erdie is NO ones consensus champion at any weight. But yet, people want to make hay that he is some sort of force in the division because he beat a bum, who beat Dm who dumped titles to fight bums.

Consensus does not equal lineal.

And your claim to be apathetic is disingenious. You keep posting....


Keith