I agree he is not much of a champion, but a champion none the less. When Famechon and Legra fought the were the top two ranked at the weight, if that isn't enough to crown a new champion, what is? Arguello's win carries less weight because it traces back to a vacant title not contested between the best two at the weight. It is synthetic at some level because rankings aren't always consensus, but once a new lineage begins there is nothing synthetic at all, the championship is won or lost in the ring only.
When Famechon and Legra fought they were two men fighting for a vacant title, 50% of a vacant title in fact. That's it. They weren't establishing lineage or anything of the sort. If they were then why were they fighting for an ABC belt rather than simply the lineal championship? Even them being #1 and #2 in the division is subjective, as you acknowledge, and yet from that point on theirs was definitively the "true" title? It just highlights the flimsiness and questionable credibility of the lineal title. Jofre's title was no more credible than Arguello's. But if he'd beaten Arguello...
It doesn't bother me who sanctions the title fights. The two were seen as the two best by all neutral ranking bodies and publications. If that isn't enough to start a new lineage for you that is up to you. For me having the 2 best contenders face off does begin a new lineage.
Jofre was smart to have retired when he did...I agree with scartissue about the toll that age had begun to take on the Brazilian great.
Fair enough if you believe all that stuff about them beginning a new lineage. Me, I just find it a lot of nonsense and it doesn't add any credibility whatsoever to a title.
I'd say the man makes the belt as well, even if he isn't lineal. Linear doesn't really mean anything these days or add any special significance.
I agree that a man being lineal doesn't bolster his standing on its own. A man being lineal means he beat the previous champ. I do think you should not be classed as a world champion if you did not best the previous champion. Call them title holders by all means.
I'm of the exact same opinion. So many "world" champions today just wouldn't be world champs if we only had one and so many contenders of the past would of been "world" titles claimants if there had been all kinds of titles flying about in their day. Imagine the fights we would never of seen if they were all protecting there 0 back then and dodging each other.
Exactly. If the lineal title had prestige with the media and fans, atleast the there would only be one recognised champ, even if he was considered a protected champ or a paper champ, atleast everyone would know who the champ was. Now admittedly with this thread focus, not everyone knew the champ was Jofre, and so e would dispute it. I would and will argue he is the only one who can be champ due to being the only one who beat the champ. I'm not sure Stoney will agree with me but Lopez v Kotey in 76, given Arguello's departure, I have that as he next 1 v 2 fight. Boxing is subjective, I just want clarity, I want everyone to be able to atleast agree on who the champ is and why they're the champ.
We'll only get that again when we we the best fighting the best. I want to see that as well, clarity. At the risk of sounding "elitist" there's so many casual fans lapping up any fight that's got a title attached to it I can't see boxing coming back from it. It's at the stage now that if you look at some other forums that anyone who doesn't win a world titles these days is considered a failure. I think we all have an idea who we think is the best in each division and that's about the most we're going to get. I can see more titles in the future rather than less.
Totally agree. That's the only reason I trace the lineal titles, so I can say "well out of the 29 title claimants only he beat the previous champ" But yeah mostly now it's just who you think is best out of the titlists.
Strictly speaking, "lineal title" doesn't carry much meaning in that it is constantly broken, which I think is one thing Berlenbach has a problem with. If a champion retires, Jeffries for instance, then the throne becomes open. "Keeping it warm" makes no sense and will make a mess of things. Official retirement=abdication. Personally, I don't use the term "lineal." But that doesn't mean we can't separate the true champions throughout history from the mere claimants. Obviously it won't be perfect and there will be room for debate (middleweight in the 30s for example), but it can be done. The first thing is finding the top-two best in a manner that is as objective as possible. That's The Ring ratings. What other rankings go back to 1928? The second thing is tracing the succession until it breaks, at which point you go back to the first thing. That's the point of the Transnational Boxing Rankings, which picked up where The Ring left off, with many improvements --first offer clean rankings that make sense and that are representative (18 countries/5 continents). Second create a system where #1 must face #2 to fill open thrones.
Yeah the 30's MW's were a nightmare. I've concluded that Thil wasn't in a successful 1 v 2 matchup as far as I can gather. I think Steele vs Risko was 1 v 2. Hated tracing the FW lineage that was a right ballache. SBW was easy although I do think CBZ missed a good chunk. Onto finalising my interpretation of BW next (remember when i first started this a couple or years ago lineal and premiere? I'm nearly finished nkw), oh the joys.