This one is for ALL the marbles...

Stop throwing a hissy fit.

If the man is not around, unification of the WBC and WBA is what creates lineage.

If you want to talk historically then speak accurately.

 

No!

To establish lineage historically it starts with the WBC and WBA.

Sutherland was not the champ.

Calzaghe has never unified the WBC and WBA and thus isn't the real champ. He is the best but he isnt the man.

 

It does not matter who the first champ is.

If I go and create a division called super heavy and create a belt ABC then that begins lineage? Of course not.

Lineage is a historic entity and it is rooted in the WBC and WBA.

We aren't going back to the Gazette. Prior to the WBC and WBA there were orgs that would decide champs i.e. NBA, NYSAC, EBU, BBBofC etc These groups were coupled under umbrella orgs known as WBC and WBA.

First the WBA formed and then the WBC. The WBO and IBF are splinter groups with no history.

 

Some of the orgs reformed i.e. NBA into WBA, and some of them came under an umbrella i.e. EBU under WBC. That is why being British, Commonwealth and EBU champ gets you high rankings in the WBC.

NBA did turn into the WBA and EBU, BBBofC did go under the umbrella of WBC.

"Our organization was born as the National Boxing Association (NBA) in 1921"
- www.wbaonline.com

"The groups that historically had recognized several boxers as champions lacked generally of the one aspect they boasted of: their status of 'international'. Among the most outstanding bodies of those times were the Athletic Council of New York, the National Boxing Association, the European Boxing Union and the British Boxing Board of Control."
- www.wbcboxing.com

Note: You now know the WBA was founded from the NBA. The other orgs however came under the WBC. Not only the EBU but others - "The WBC has nine regional governing bodies affiliated with it, such as the North American Boxing Federation (NABF), the Oriental and Pacific Boxing Federation (OPBF), the European Boxing Union (EBU), and the African Boxing Council (ABC)."
- wikipedia

You don't need to go back to the Gazette. You only need to go back to before the ABCs. Before the ABCs numerous orgs chose the champ. These orgs predominantly were NYSAC and NBA but others like BBBofC also dictated champ. However the linear champ was always known. So even though the BBBofC once said Savold was the heavyweight champ, it was known that he wasn't really.

The man can define the belt by being known as the best i.e. Calzaghe but he isn't really the champ if you want to assess him historically. Otherwise I can consider Savold a titlist and even the coloured champs as titlists.

The WBO and IBF are merely splinter groups with no history, no substance, they are a result of politics:
IBF:
"In 1983, at the WBA's annual convention, held in Puerto Rico that year, Bob Lee, president of the USBA, lost in his bid to become WBA president against Gilberto Mendoza. Lee and others withdrew from the convention after the election, and decided to organize a new world-level organization."
- wikipedia

WBO:
"The WBO started after a group of Puerto Rican and Dominican businessmen broke out of the World Boxing Association's 1988 annual convention in Isla Margarita, Venezuela, claiming to be disgusted by the WBA's questionable rules and ratings systems."
- wikipedia

So just to recap - the WBO and IBF have NO HISTORIC VALUE when it comes to lineage. Lineage is based on who beat who. If that man isn't around then the WBC and WBA have to be unified to re-establish lineage.

Do you understand now? Unforutnately it is a little complicated.

 

Great so the WBU and IBO are now part of lineage right?

Hatton, Maccranelli, Calzaghe, Hopkins, Tarver and world class fighters have fought for these belts.