Is pac a 4 division champ or 5?

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by CloudJay, Jun 29, 2008.


Page 1 of 3
  1. CloudJay

    CloudJay Member Full Member

    274
    0
    Jun 29, 2008
    Cause if we include the lineal 126 title, then he should be a 5 time champ in 5 weightclass. But how come poeple says and think he is only a 4 time champ?
     
    CloudJay, Jun 29, 2008
    CloudJay, Jun 29, 2008
    #1
  2. psychopath

    psychopath D' "X" Factor Full Member

    26,390
    2
    Mar 13, 2007
    Officially and by the books 4!

    But on any real boxing pundits mind 5. :yep :D
     
    psychopath, Jun 29, 2008
    psychopath, Jun 29, 2008
    #2
  3. Marc

    Marc Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,971
    0
    Apr 7, 2007
    it should be 5 if it were not for a technicality.
     
    Marc, Jun 29, 2008
    Marc, Jun 29, 2008
    #3
  4. BigReg

    BigReg Broad Street Bully Full Member

    38,117
    5
    Jun 26, 2007
    What technicality? He never won a world championship at 126.
     
    BigReg, Jun 29, 2008
    BigReg, Jun 29, 2008
    #4
  5. CloudJay

    CloudJay Member Full Member

    274
    0
    Jun 29, 2008
    He said that he should be, he never said pac won an alphabet title their but pac won the lineal and ring championship.

    The media should start proclaiming pac as a five time champ to the public and explain the reason so that their will be no confusions.
     
    CloudJay, Jun 29, 2008
    CloudJay, Jun 29, 2008
    #5
  6. JabCross727

    JabCross727 Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,912
    124
    Jun 14, 2008
    Could you clarify what the lineal championship was? I know what the Ring championship is but I just want to make sure how Marco Antonio Barrera was the lineal champion.
     
    JabCross727, Jun 29, 2008
    JabCross727, Jun 29, 2008
    #6
  7. BigReg

    BigReg Broad Street Bully Full Member

    38,117
    5
    Jun 26, 2007
    But there is no technicallity. There is no such thing as a "lineal" champion. It's just a term that fans made up. Ring Magazine is just that, a magazine. He can't give someone credit for winning a world championship based off of a magazine.
     
    BigReg, Jun 29, 2008
    BigReg, Jun 29, 2008
    #7
  8. CloudJay

    CloudJay Member Full Member

    274
    0
    Jun 29, 2008

    Cause MAB defeat the recognize champ that time and his name is HAMED. Dont tell me you dont consider hamed as the rocognize lineal champ that time. After that, mab became the lineal and recognize champ at 126 with the wbc belt but mab gave away his belt to avoid sanctioning fee cause he knows that everyone knows he is the true and lineal champ at 126.

    After that BOOM!! a big whirlwind from the pacific hit mab and that whirlwinds name is Manny Pacquiao. Is that answers your question?
     
    CloudJay, Jun 29, 2008
    CloudJay, Jun 29, 2008
    #8
  9. bmdahl

    bmdahl New Member Full Member

    4
    0
    Jun 10, 2008
    He should have been considered the lineal champ as Naseem Hamed unified the belts before losing to Barrera. Hamed won the IBF from Tom Johnson, the WBC from Cesar Soto, and beat Wilfredo Vasquez who was the WBA champion before being stripped. So while Hamed didn't technically unify the belts, he did beat all the champions from the different alphabet organizations making him the unified champ. And so Pac should have been considered the undisputed champ too.
     
    bmdahl, Jun 29, 2008
    bmdahl, Jun 29, 2008
    #9
  10. jaco

    jaco Thomas Hearns Full Member

    2,000
    1
    Sep 16, 2007
    He is a 5 time champion in my book, Barrera was considered the man at 126 when Pacquiao beat him.
     
    jaco, Jun 29, 2008
    jaco, Jun 29, 2008
    #10
  11. CloudJay

    CloudJay Member Full Member

    274
    0
    Jun 29, 2008
    but can you consider those alphabet titles as a real proof of becoming a real champion? Theres a lot of championship belts right now and anyone can have one but being the lineal and recognize poeples fetherweight champ...men thats a hard thing to do. Dont tell me that you prefer a wbo champion than the lineal champ?
    We cannot just ignore the fact that pacman's best win is against the recognize champion in that division by the name of barrera.
     
    CloudJay, Jun 29, 2008
    CloudJay, Jun 29, 2008
    #11
  12. BigReg

    BigReg Broad Street Bully Full Member

    38,117
    5
    Jun 26, 2007
    Here's the problem, this isn't factual information. It's all based on opinion. And you ask if I prefer a WBO champ over a lineal champ. Ask that Margo fans or Mayweathers detractors. Watch how many of them rip Floyd for chosing to fight the lineal champ over the WBO champ. That's the problem with the whole championship debate. People will value or devalue any championship to suit there agenda. I keep it simple, WBC/WBA/IBF/WBO. Those are what I consider to be championships.
     
    BigReg, Jun 29, 2008
    BigReg, Jun 29, 2008
    #12
  13. Asterion

    Asterion Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,459
    20
    Feb 5, 2005
    Who cares.

    He's a Lineal Champ in 3 divisions.
     
    Asterion, Jun 29, 2008
    Asterion, Jun 29, 2008
    #13
  14. kg0208

    kg0208 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    16,031
    6
    Aug 8, 2005
    5 titles. The boxing media for the most part recognizes Lineal and Ring titles. So do I. MAB was lineal and Ring champion, so to me, Pacquiao was the 126 champion.
     
    kg0208, Jun 29, 2008
    kg0208, Jun 29, 2008
    #14
  15. bigtime9

    bigtime9 Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,980
    0
    May 11, 2006
    great post..you can't be a "lineal" champion without winning an alphabet title. the door swings both ways. barerra was recognized as a "lineal champion" because he won the wbc title:deal
     
    bigtime9, Jun 29, 2008
    bigtime9, Jun 29, 2008
    #15
Page 1 of 3