List 3-division world titlists...

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by Illmatic, Jan 24, 2008.


  1. Boom_Boom

    Boom_Boom R.I.P Boxing 6/9/12 Full Member

    38,281
    13
    Sep 21, 2006
    Do you know who was lineal at the time, I just knew it was unification.
     
  2. kg0208

    kg0208 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    16,031
    6
    Aug 8, 2005
    Apparently, no one. The titles hadn't been unified in years at that weight.
     
  3. Beeston Brawler

    Beeston Brawler Comical Ali-egedly Full Member

    46,399
    15
    Jan 9, 2008
    I don't think Pac Man cares about belts - why would he 'defend' an international title about seven times!

    The belt is secondary to the guys in the middle - the way boxing is these days means this is commonplace.
     
  4. ripcity

    ripcity Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    20,449
    51
    Dec 5, 2006
    could you expalne the diffrence?
     
  5. box_fan_uk

    box_fan_uk Member Full Member

    116
    0
    Jul 11, 2007
  6. Illmatic

    Illmatic Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,062
    4
    Jul 19, 2004
    damn, youre right....the things you can accomplish by having a great fighters #
     
  7. Boom_Boom

    Boom_Boom R.I.P Boxing 6/9/12 Full Member

    38,281
    13
    Sep 21, 2006
    then it would of been lineal still even if Sanchez's belt was given to him
     
  8. kg0208

    kg0208 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    16,031
    6
    Aug 8, 2005
    How so? Winning two belts isn't even full unification much less Lineal.

    The 3 different ways people contend that a lineal champion can be re-established after it has been vacated or broken are as follows (to my knowledge)

    1. WBA-WBC Unification. (I doubt this is accurate since it has been re-established without this. But it is arguable since they are the 2 oldest belts)

    2. WBA-WBC-IBF Unification. (WBO may be apart of it NOW, depending on who the champion is. But as recently as last year it was unnecessary to be considered undisputed)

    3. A #1 vs #2 matchup between the 2 recognized top fighters in the division. (Usually taken care of by the 2nd equation, but not always. And they have fought before without belts to create lineage as well, so this may be the ACTUAL way it is done of the 3, with the 2nd one being a byproduct of this one. Problem is, who decides who the top 2 are?)

    Point is, none of those 3 situations was present when Pacquiao faced Sanchez. Neither was considered #1 or #2 (Pacquiao was rated #1 by Ring after the fight with Sanchez, behind Ayala who was the Ring champion). And it wasn't for total unification. So even if he had won, he wouldn't have been lineal.
     
  9. Boom_Boom

    Boom_Boom R.I.P Boxing 6/9/12 Full Member

    38,281
    13
    Sep 21, 2006
    So Ayala was lineal, which was my original question in the first place.
     
  10. kg0208

    kg0208 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    16,031
    6
    Aug 8, 2005
    No, he was Ring. Not lineal....
     
  11. kg0208

    kg0208 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    16,031
    6
    Aug 8, 2005
    My P4P list places more emphasis on perceived ability and H2H. My ATG list is based mostly on accomplishments/resume. All of it is factored in on both lists, but certain things are emphasized more on each.
     
  12. Illmatic

    Illmatic Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,062
    4
    Jul 19, 2004
    most of the time, ring re-establishes lineal b.c of the #1 v #2 matchup that is required for it. Except for some notable exceptions like Vitali and Hopkins at light heavy.
     
  13. bxrfan

    bxrfan Sizzle Full Member

    3,061
    15
    Sep 28, 2007
    Alexis Arguello hasn't been mentioned yet.
     
  14. Drew101

    Drew101 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    29,705
    8,197
    Feb 11, 2005
    Add Leo Gamez, too. He was never lineal, but he did win alphabet titles in four weight classes.
     
  15. Illmatic

    Illmatic Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,062
    4
    Jul 19, 2004
    you sure know your low weight classes