Lineal Champ Vs Undisputed Champ Vs Div Champ Vs The Ring Champ

[jrosales13]

In most cases if you're undisputed and I mean truly undisputed then really you're also the lineal champ.

So undisputed(But, really undisputed meaning no dispute)>Lineal>Ring>Div Champ.

[jonesy]

Originally Posted by Pricky Ricky

In your opinion which one is the best one to be?? why???

People's Champ > Manny Pacquiao. Ring legends are never forgotton.

[catalinul]

Originally Posted by jrosales13

In most cases if you're undisputed and I mean truly undisputed then really you're also the lineal champ.

So undisputed(But, really undisputed meaning no dispute)>Lineal>Ring>Div Champ.

Exactly right.

[Heru]

Originally Posted by jrosales13

In most cases if you're undisputed and I mean truly undisputed then really you're also the lineal champ.

So undisputed(But, really undisputed meaning no dispute)>Lineal>Ring>Div Champ.

The sanctioning body *******s have made it impossible to become a truly undisputed champion.

People think Hopkins became undisputed after the Trinidad fight... No. He became undisputed when he fought Oscar, who won it from Sturm, who was hiding in Germany.

Even RJ Jr. never became undisputed and I think lineal champion because of Darius Mich. The Ring title is basically the lineal title, but they stopped giving those out for the 90s.

[Vladimir303]

Originally Posted by catalinul

Not really,you can be undisputed and hold 2,1 or none of the belts.They strip them so easily it's ahrd to hold them.Sergio Martinez is the undisputed MW champ for example and he has only 1.
You don't have to hold 1 belt to be lineal either.Barrera wss the FW champ nad he didn't have no belt.
And being division champ(for me anywya) doesn't just mean you beat a title holder.By doing that you are exactly that-a title holder.
My poijnt is lineal,undisputed and division champ is the same thing.

This may be true but you're still wrong about the definition.

The specific term for Undisputed Champ is being a Unified Champ, and nobody out there DISPUTING your claim. If there is one title holder out there, and nobody considers him the champ either, he is disputing your Undisputed status.

Hopkins became Undisputed when he finally got the WBO belt, which he never held or vacated, against Delahoya.

Finally my viewpoint of what's the best to be in chronological order:

UNDISPUTED CHAMP - It's always good to get all the belts and nobody running around there, claiming to be some champ that you're ducking.

RING MAGAZINE CHAMP - This is good to have, lets say you did unify all the belts but for some reason start getting stripped of them, for not facing some bum mandatory and instead fighting the guy everyone wants you to fight (I.E. Tarver and Glen Johnson, two best Light-heavy's facing each other and getting strpped of the IBF for doing so), The Ring Magazine still signfies that you're THE MAN of the division.

LINEAL CHAMP - This is good to be if you can but it's not the most recognized thing amongst the general fan. If you're fortunate enough to take the title from the TRUE champ, like Hatton did from Tszyu, like Pacquiao did from Hatton....it's a good thing. But if you're a 140 pounder and the lineal champ has moved up (I.E. Like Pacquiao now and Bradley, Khan, Alexander can't get the lineal title) then it's good to get one of the three above and start a new lineage. Sometimes you just can't get the Lineal Champ, whether he retires with the title, moves up or whatever.

[qwerty07]

None of them are more important than the others.

[RicDaRula]

Originally Posted by jonesy

People's Champ > Manny Pacquiao. Ring legends are never forgotton.

Fuka people's champ....this **** ain't a popularity contest....you gotta earn it in the ring.....

[RicDaRula]

Originally Posted by qwerty07

None of them are more important than the others.

If you really believe that then you don't know boxing......true strory!!!!!!

[catalinul]

Originally Posted by Vladimir303

This may be true but you're still wrong about the definition.

The specific term for Undisputed Champ is being a Unified Champ, and nobody out there DISPUTING your claim. If there is one title holder out there, and nobody considers him the champ either, he is disputing your Undisputed status.

Hopkins became Undisputed when he finally got the WBO belt, which he never held or vacated, against Delahoya.

Finally my viewpoint of what's the best to be in chronological order:

UNDISPUTED CHAMP - It's always good to get all the belts and nobody running around there, claiming to be some champ that you're ducking.

RING MAGAZINE CHAMP - This is good to have, lets say you did unify all the belts but for some reason start getting stripped of them, for not facing some bum mandatory and instead fighting the guy everyone wants you to fight (I.E. Tarver and Glen Johnson, two best Light-heavy's facing each other and getting strpped of the IBF for doing so), The Ring Magazine still signfies that you're THE MAN of the division.

LINEAL CHAMP - This is good to be if you can but it's not the most recognized thing amongst the general fan. If you're fortunate enough to take the title from the TRUE champ, like Hatton did from Tszyu, like Pacquiao did from Hatton....it's a good thing. But if you're a 140 pounder and the lineal champ has moved up (I.E. Like Pacquiao now and Bradley, Khan, Alexander can't get the lineal title) then it's good to get one of the three above and start a new lineage. Sometimes you just can't get the Lineal Champ, whether he retires with the title, moves up or whatever.

I don't agree with that.

Jermain Taylor was the undisputed champion after he beat Hopkins(regardless how close the fights were or if you disagree with the decisions).
After that he got stripped of 2 of his 4 belts because he rematched Hopkins which were taken to Germany.
Even withou those 2 belts Taylor was still the undisputed champion for me because those belts are worthless.

[Franco2012]

its all about Lineal