So could someone fully explain what this is too me? I vaguely understand it, is it basically when the #1 beats the #2 a lineal title is created? Then the next person who beats the #1 is the new lineal champion. Is this right?
As it stands right now, since erdei announced his retirement and hopkins beat pascal, it's back to being the ring champ. There aren't any old lineages to contend with the ring champ, they won't strip and they rank everyone who matters. Some people complain about the occasions where ring sanctions 1 v 3 but not every lineal champ in history has been decided by 1 v 2 by my reckoning so I aint gonna complain now. As far as it stands each ring champ is the rightful lineal champ and Each lineal champ has the ring championship belt.
But do I have it right, Ignoring #1 vs #3 and if there was no Ring belt would the lineal champ be the #1 guy beating the #2 guy and then whoever beats the #1 after that is the new lineal champ?
That is a valid interpretation, but it's just that. I mean who's rankings do you use to determine 1 v 2? Cbz has a good history but isn't fully upto date imo and it has made some big errors early on. I think using the 1 v 2 logic changes the history of the sport dramatically, i'm pretty sure that when robinson fought for the welterweight title he never fought the number 2 ranked fighter. It's not just that as well, there are other examples but it's about recognition also, should the lineal title be a notional award with not body to manage it, or should it be the best available option? I've rambled a bit there, some posters are dead set in there ways and will likely disagree strongly with me. But to answer your question, yes that's one of the interpretations.
For starters The Ring has nothing to do with lineage, it has its own belt, and its own criteria for creating champions... Lineage is a manipulation of anyone's own perceptions, there is not right or wrong way to do it. The only rule as such, is a lineage champ must lose his crown either in the ring, on the scales or though retirement. Lineage is unique and sometimes created in bizarre circumstances: For instance. lineage was 'generally considered', created at Featherweight, when Sanchez died and thus there was only one champ, Eusebio Pedroza, who won it by default.
The Lineal Title argument is a worthless culdesac argument. There is no apostolic succession involved with being the man who beat the man, when the latter is a propped up imitator. Many times in the sport's history the Lineal holder was not the best fighter at his weight. Lineal Titties, how I first read the topic, is another matter entirely, one which I fully support.
If the champion was always the best fighter the title would never change hands. Is there a better way than giving the championship to the man that beats the champion ?
