This one is for ALL the marbles...

I agree, but that trinket is considered to be the label of the concensus whom is considered the best. The fighter matters, hence the constallation which you present would be correct. However, I am old skool in such a way that I would feel they held the weaker belts - a feeling that I can't(won't?) shake.

Even if we feel that JC and Kessler are the best at 168, the two others hold enough quality to be considered as well, especially if we play that Kessler and Mundine have never fought. Would be too big a questionmark to just think that JC and Kessler are the best. I wouldn't consider those two as weak champions like I feel Berrio is.

Having said that I agree that it matters alot whom they have claimed the belts from - maybe more than anything else, cept skills.

Again having said skills, we all know that A may beat B, but lose to C, while B can beat C, which will make it even worse.

 

Haha - yeah it can be tough to be patriotic and a fan of someone else at the same time(JC - Froch). Maybe the thought - "may the best man win" - and lean back in the sofa and enjoy .

 

LOL, you do not learn

It is a matter fact, there is no such thing as a boxing linear champion now a days, and there will not ever be again unless a new weight division is created.

Lineage:

Direct descent from a particular ancestor

The descendants of a ancestor considered to be the founder of the line.

No one fighter claiming a world title today meets either criteria....

 

OK, I get it. So because the WBC incorporated those OTHER pre-existing bodies, that gave it greater legitimacy. I hadn't realized this. My recollections were that it was strictly a WBA offshoot. Do you know of any articles discussing this split-and-combination process in depth?? I'm actually sort of interested in this. My memories of the WBC date from the 70s, when it had already become Suliaman's fiefdom, and was regarded as quite corrupt.

And this lineal/linear distinction is rather interesting also. Could you explain this in greater detail. I've heard of it before, but both seem like "man who beat the man" concepts. I'm not sure I fully grasp the distinction.

For what it's worth, I think Calzaghe is going to render this all moot and win a rather wide, Lacy-like UD. :yep

 

He is a rather robotic fighter to me, I consider that his biggest weakness. Don't get me wrong, Kessler is a worthy champion, but once elite fighters start meeting elite fighters, these kinds of small weaknesses can become exploited to full effect, and can mean the difference between victory and defeat. Both fighters have their weaknesses, though I believe prime for prime that Calzaghe was the more complete boxer. He is also a southpaw, which will cause Mikkel further problems. However one cannot ignore the fact that Kessler is hungry, and that Calzaghe is 35 years of age.

 

Its a matter of semantics.

Sure, lineage does not exist to the first champion. But there is a way to re-establish lineage. Now you cant do that if you have a webster's dictionary stuck up your ass, but in this world known as professional boxing you can.

So learn the rules of BOXING before you sit on a dictionary.

 

LOL. If only he knew that we disagree 95% of the time maybe he would understand.

 

Great work Achilles.

This post should be a new thread, and stickied for those that dont know the history.

 

Best post ive seen. It should be highlighted on the front page of ESB :good

 

aka a sticky.....

that was definitely thorough work thats for sure.

 

Well use the correct words, lineage in boxing no longer exists, it is your opinion that X is a champion, the same as it is mine that Y is.

Do not pretend there is some formula or science to what is yours and mine opinions.