Mayweather was never a WBC WW linear champion. Neither was Baldomir.

Wow, a well constructed answer! However, this is what you are doing (specially in the last paragraph). You are using geometrical/mathematical truths not as way of COMPARING (or exemplifying), but as a way of EQUATING, and that is a fallacy. To equate the geometrical definition of a line and a point, which are tautological truths of the highest level, to an example in which what must be compared (or in your case, equated), to the point, is the word champion, constitutes a falsehood by itself (like saying that because we are talking about Ali and how he talks about moving like a butterfly and stinging like a bee, you the come to me and say "Do you know about bees? Well if a bee stings you, she dies, therefore, if Ali hits you, he will die"), and because the word champion, as applied by the examples provided by you and illustrated by the arguing of the guy with the Italian flag in the avatar is an arbitrary construction. Hence, you have to finish you argument with "once that champ has been established. By who? Who died to make you king? Oh, again, the arbitrary process, the end of legitimacy, or, as you make it, a line in which the first point is an illegitimate, arbitrary one, but the second one, is a legitimate, non-arbitrary one, by virtue of equating tautologies with non-tautologies. More elegantly seen in this quote: Pythagoras's theorem is a statement about objects that have no width, mass, or time duration. It is not a statement about depressions in sand, sticks, or strings. The fact that in a right triangle, the sum of the squares of the legs equals the square of the hypotenuse was true long before Pythagoras or even planet Earth was around; that it was discovered by some humans (long before Pythagoras, actually) has no bearing on its validity. Actually, I was arguing by analogy. It's well known in philosophy, since the days of Hume, at least, that arguments by analogy are flawed to begin with as nothing can exactly compare to something else unless it's the same thing, in which case you don't need an analogy. I use it, not to express truth, but to help in the understanding of truth. That is where arguments by analogy excel. You keep bringing up that this or that is arbitrary. Well, philosophically speaking, EVERYTHING is arbitrary. Your name, the sun, the President, everything is arbitrary and subject to how people define it. Some group must agree on something and define it, that's how we get everything. What is anything but it's definition? And, what's a definition but a man-composed grouping of words that was agreed upon by some group. In Pythagoras' theorem, you need to first agree that there are 180 degrees in the sum of all angles in a triangle. If you do not agree with this, then Pythagoras' theorem doesn't hold water to you. In boxing, a group of people (the majority OR a consensus) agree that X or Y fighter is THE champion at a particular weight. How they come to this conclusion is irrelevant to the fact that it's been defined as such. As with everything else in this world, a group defines some definition that the rest of us use as a basis for our conclusions. We take the consensus definition of what THE champion is and then use the English language (such as the word lineal) to define those who come after this champion. It's well known in nature that everything comes to an end. It's also well known that every beginning is the end of something else. So, too, with lineal championships. A search for THE champion begins with the end of the lineal champs reign as such. A new lineal champ is established once someone defeats the person considered THE champion. I can use the example of royalty if you'd like. It's like a different dynasty. The first Chinese Dynasty was the Xia dynasty. Every Xia emperor after the first Xia emperor was part of the Xia lineal dynasty. Can we agree on this? Well, once the first Shang emperor came to power, and the last Xia emperor was no longer in power, the Xia line came to an end and the Shang lineal dynasty was established. A new line of emperors in China (just like we get a new line of champions in boxing). We have dynasties where titles are passed lineally. Once a line is broken, a new one begins, but it doesn't start where the other left off, it starts it's own line. What I'm trying to say is that it's not a continuous line from the first champion until today. There are several lines of champions, all with a beginning and an end (except for the current ones, who haven't ended, obviously).

Bat, you basically said, @!$@#!#$! Dan Rafael lol... Dan Rafael aint worth sh!t if you ask me.

I meant the premise of this thread. What if a German won the linear championship? Erdei is linear champ. He fights out of Germany. The linear champions can be found here: http://cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/champ.htm

It is pretty simple. Think back to the beginning of boxing. Let's say that the first person to win the title (when there was only one) in the Paperweight division was Johnny Popcorn. Johnny is the first champ, so there is no line and, therefore, cannot be considered lineal. Johnny goes on to successfully defend his belt 100 times, but he's still not a lineal champ. However, if Bobby Peanut comes along and beats him, Bobby is now the lineal champion. You see, you can't have a line with only one person in it; you need two to form a line and the first person to beat a champion is the first lineal champ. The person before him was just a champ. It's the simplest form of logic I can think of. Now, say Bobby Peanut decides to retire and, simultaneously, three more belt organizations are formed (the ABC, DEF, and GHI), to go with the XYZ division that was the original. Now we have four belt holders and the only way to decide who the real champion is if one person wins all four, or wins at least three and the fourth belt holder doesn't want to fight him and all sports writers consider him the champion. Let's say that Davey Cherry wins all four belts. He is now THE champ in the Paperweight division, even if he's not a lineal champ (remember, there is no line since he's the first REAL champ since the line was broken). If Billy Apple comes along and beats Davey Cherry, he then becomes the SECOND lineal champ because the first one, Bobby Peanut, had retired. Do you know how to count? In the 10-base system, you start with 0 (even if normally people don't) and count 10 units (0-9), the eleventh unit is the second unit infront of the first unit (1 is the second unit, 0 is the first unit), making a 10. The point is that you have to basically start over every 10 units in the 10-base system, or every 2 units in binary (2-base system). The same applies to lineal champs. You start over every time you reach the end of the line with a new line. That new line starts with THE champ in every division, once that champ is established. Wow, a well constructed answer! However, this is what you are doing (specially in the last paragraph). You are using geometrical/mathematical truths not as way of COMPARING (or exemplifying), but as a way of EQUATING, and that is a fallacy. To equate the geometrical definition of a line and a point, which are tautological truths of the highest level, to an example in which what must be compared (or in your case, equated), to the point, is the word champion, constitutes a falsehood by itself (like saying that because we are talking about Ali and how he talks about moving like a butterfly and stinging like a bee, you the come to me and say "Do you know about bees? Well if a bee stings you, she dies, therefore, if Ali hits you, he will die"), and because the word champion, as applied by the examples provided by you and illustrated by the arguing of the guy with the Italian flag in the avatar is an arbitrary construction. Hence, you have to finish you argument with "once that champ has been established. By who? Who died to make you king? Oh, again, the arbitrary process, the end of legitimacy, or, as you make it, a line in which the first point is an illegitimate, arbitrary one, but the second one, is a legitimate, non-arbitrary one, by virtue of equating tautologies with non-tautologies. More elegantly seen in this quote: Pythagoras's theorem is a statement about objects that have no width, mass, or time duration. It is not a statement about depressions in sand, sticks, or strings. The fact that in a right triangle, the sum of the squares of the legs equals the square of the hypotenuse was true long before Pythagoras or even planet Earth was around; that it was discovered by some humans (long before Pythagoras, actually) has no bearing on its validity.

And that is because the "linear champion" argument is logically flawed. Since Milton McCrory won the vacant WBC WW title after Leonard retired, there has never been a linear champion. And that is because even if you defeated the guy who was the champion, eventually you get to a point where the "line" has been broken. To top it off, the "line" was also broken by Trinidad vacating the title and now, by Mayweather "retiring". Of course, logic-challenged journalists like Dan Rafael may say otherwise, because it sounds good on paper. "THE LINEAR CHAMPION". They have a new idea to write about. Makes their job easier. They can sell us a new idea. But to declare a linear champion after the line has been broken -three times to makes it worse- would be arbitrary BS, because logically, the WBC "linear champion" argument ended the day Leonard retired. Example: Guy 1: "Oh, Baldo was the linear champion" Guy 2: "Really? Who did he defeat?" Guy 1: "LAWL he defeated Judah you moron!" Guy 2: "And who did Judah defeat to become champion" Guy 1: "Plain and Basic Common Sense: Spinks, who defeated Mayorga, you biased 'rican" Guy 2: "Yes, yes, I remember, Mayorga owned poor Vernon, who in turn owned poor Sugar Shane... you remember that Shane won a vacant belt right?" Guy 1: "What the f@ck does it matter?" Guy 2: "Well, I want to ask you, when does the linear championship magically re-appears, when Vernon really defeated a guy who was not the linear champion. I guess it then you are creating something -the linear championship- from nothing -a guy who was not the linear champion-. It's arbitrary." Guy 1: "F@ck you. I believe in Dan Rafael." Discuss. shane mosley had the wbc belt -> Vernon Forrest beat Shane for it -> Ricardo Mayorga had the WBA belt and unified the belts by beating Vernon -> Spinks had the IBF belt and unified the IBF,WBA, and WBC belts by beating Mayorga->Judah KO'd spinks to become the UNDISPUTED LINEAR WW CHAMP->Baldy beats Judah its that simple.. THE DEFINITION OF A LINEAR CHAMP IS THE MAIN CHAMP AT THAT WEIGHT CLASS...BALDY WAS THE LINEAR CHAMP CUZ HE WAS THE ONE WHO BEAT "THE MAN" AT WELTERWEIGHT.

And that is because the "linear champion" argument is logically flawed. Since Milton McCrory won the vacant WBC WW title after Leonard retired, there has never been a linear champion. And that is because even if you defeated the guy who was the champion, eventually you get to a point where the "line" has been broken. To top it off, the "line" was also broken by Trinidad vacating the title and now, by Mayweather "retiring". Of course, logic-challenged journalists like Dan Rafael may say otherwise, because it sounds good on paper. "THE LINEAR CHAMPION". They have a new idea to write about. Makes their job easier. They can sell us a new idea. But to declare a linear champion after the line has been broken -three times to makes it worse- would be arbitrary BS, because logically, the WBC "linear champion" argument ended the day Leonard retired. Example: Guy 1: "Oh, Baldo was the linear champion" Guy 2: "Really? Who did he defeat?" Guy 1: "LAWL he defeated Judah you moron!" Guy 2: "And who did Judah defeat to become champion" Guy 1: "Plain and Basic Common Sense: Spinks, who defeated Mayorga, you biased 'rican" Guy 2: "Yes, yes, I remember, Mayorga owned poor Vernon, who in turn owned poor Sugar Shane... you remember that Shane won a vacant belt right?" Guy 1: "What the f@ck does it matter?" Guy 2: "Well, I want to ask you, when does the linear championship magically re-appears, when Vernon really defeated a guy who was not the linear champion. I guess it then you are creating something -the linear championship- from nothing -a guy who was not the linear champion-. It's arbitrary." Guy 1: "F@ck you. I believe in Dan Rafael." Discuss. You have a point but it's still way better than what happens today with the regular belts. Look at the heavyweight champion, Wladimir Klitschko. He gets to defend his tittle against a mandatory who's stepping up in class at 36 years of age, for the first time! Where do they find these guys? Simple, they carefully select 2 crappy guys and give them the chance to fight for the tittle in a "tittle eliminator bout" which is really more a WWE freak show failing to resemble any sport. More examples can be given like Joe Calzaghe and Mikkel Kessler who are among the best "mandatory killers" out there. I mean, it's ok to defend your tittle. But when your competition value is crap you should either move weight classes or have someone else doing that. To be fair, i'm glad to see Joe Calzaghe finally risking it a bit stepping up in weight, but still very carefully planned and against older fighters. And people have the nerve to bash on fighters like Mayweather or Pacquiao who have moved up in weight chasing new challenges in their youth, bashing them to the ground the minute in every opportunity.

I don't know how you can say first, that it's pretty simple, and that it's not arbitrary, in the least, when you have said that the line starts again when someone defeats a person CONSIDERED the champ. Considered, as in individual judgment or preference, i.e. arbitrary, and second, that the guy who in your arbitrary judgment of the situation becomes THE champ, isn't a linear champion himself, but somehow, the guy who defeats him, does. You propose another arbitrary way to make up lineages in order to keep using the term linear (or lineal) champion, where, really, the line either has been broken, or has no legitimacy at all from the start. It is pretty simple. Think back to the beginning of boxing. Let's say that the first person to win the title (when there was only one) in the Paperweight division was Johnny Popcorn. Johnny is the first champ, so there is no line and, therefore, cannot be considered lineal. Johnny goes on to successfully defend his belt 100 times, but he's still not a lineal champ. However, if Bobby Peanut comes along and beats him, Bobby is now the lineal champion. You see, you can't have a line with only one person in it; you need two to form a line and the first person to beat a champion is the first lineal champ. The person before him was just a champ. It's the simplest form of logic I can think of. Now, say Bobby Peanut decides to retire and, simultaneously, three more belt organizations are formed (the ABC, DEF, and GHI), to go with the XYZ division that was the original. Now we have four belt holders and the only way to decide who the real champion is if one person wins all four, or wins at least three and the fourth belt holder doesn't want to fight him and all sports writers consider him the champion. Let's say that Davey Cherry wins all four belts. He is now THE champ in the Paperweight division, even if he's not a lineal champ (remember, there is no line since he's the first REAL champ since the line was broken). If Billy Apple comes along and beats Davey Cherry, he then becomes the SECOND lineal champ because the first one, Bobby Peanut, had retired. Do you know how to count? In the 10-base system, you start with 0 (even if normally people don't) and count 10 units (0-9), the eleventh unit is the second unit infront of the first unit (1 is the second unit, 0 is the first unit), making a 10. The point is that you have to basically start over every 10 units in the 10-base system, or every 2 units in binary (2-base system). The same applies to lineal champs. You start over every time you reach the end of the line with a new line. That new line starts with THE champ in every division, once that champ is established.

I meant the premise of this thread. What if a German won the linear championship? Not much. I think I spent about 10 minutes writing the post. Didn't do a good job with the history, as WMUTE did. lol @ the German comment Germans are great. Mercedes and Glaschutte (spelling) watches. They received Thompson in a classy way. And their adopted Armenian KTFO Miranda and STFU'ed me.

My reply to you... as you can see, way less than 3 minutes. The fallacy of the linear championship, as you can also see, I have been saying it for a long time here. I'm not the only one, either. Just really never cared to discuss it. I've been in classes where these kinds of fallacies have been discussed. I remember a class where there was a professor arguing that the legitimate country of earth has been made by the Germans, because the Germans have always existed. You can guess where that one ended. I meant the premise of this thread. What if a German won the linear championship?

How long did it take you to come up with this? My reply to you... as you can see, way less than 3 minutes. The fallacy of the linear championship, as you can also see, I have been saying it for a long time here. I'm not the only one, either. Just really never cared to discuss it. I've been in classes where these kinds of fallacies have been discussed. I remember a class where there was a professor arguing that the legitimate country of earth has been made by the Germans, because the Germans have always existed. You can guess where that one ended.

yep, where the lineage bs, a variation of the fallacious argument that was (and still is in some parts of the world) being used by the few to enslave the many is used in a much more childish form as a way to legitimize "true" from "false" champions. How long did it take you to come up with this?

This is boxingscene...... yep, where the lineage bs, a variation of the fallacious argument that was (and still is in some parts of the world) being used by the few to enslave the many is used in a much more childish form as a way to legitimize "true" from "false" champions.

This is boxingscene......

All "lineal" championships stem from the defeat of the person considered THE champ of the division. For example, Hopkins was considered THE champ at 160, even if he was just a "unified" champion with all 4 major belts. As soon as Jermain beat him, he became the man that beat the man, and the line, where the word "lineal" comes from, as you've pointed out, begins. There is always a first "man" in the line "the man who beat the man, who beat the man, who beat the man, etc." You're always going to come to a stopping point, right? That stopping point is always going to be the person considered THE champ in that division. If the line is broken because of retirement or a fighter moving up in weight (i.e. nobody beat him), then the lineal title is vacated and doesn't start again until someone defeats the person considered THE champ the person who becomes THE champ isn't a lineal champion, obviously). It's pretty simple and it's not arbitrary in the least. I don't know how you can say first, that it's pretty simple, and that it's not arbitrary, in the least, when you have said that the line starts again when someone defeats a person CONSIDERED the champ. Considered, as in individual judgment or preference, i.e. arbitrary, and second, that the guy who in your arbitrary judgment of the situation becomes THE champ, isn't a linear champion himself, but somehow, the guy who defeats him, does. You propose another arbitrary way to make up lineages in order to keep using the term linear (or lineal) champion, where, really, the line either has been broken, or has no legitimacy at all from the start.

Just another weak ass attempt to discredit an Insignificant fighter. PBF is gone from the sport, LET IT GO! Well it's so weak that the there have been two "STFU Ras" arguments to which I have no answer. One of them told me "hey, the line was broken before Leonard" and the other one told me "if you think hard, there has never even been a line". Everything else has been ways to legitimize a new line where the line was broken. And at that point, the line is disputable, because the process to legitimize it is completely arbitrary. The rankings are arbitrary. The process to select the new, first champion is arbitrary, and like someone else already said, this had to even happen when the first championship was awarded. And, like I said, this applies to a LOT of people. I only used the Mayweather/Baldo example because of the popularity of PBF and because, lately, when people talk about linear, they tend to talk about the Baldomir championship.

its true. i mean who was THEE FIRST lineal champion? there wasnt...at least not out of the gate...they were all ranked and fought and the top 2 guys fought for the championship and thus became the first LINEAL champion. In every division somewhere in the course of history i am absolutely certain that it hasnt all been, "beating the guy who beat the guy"...lineal champs retire, move up/down in weight...or otherwise. it happens... just like now with mayweather retiring (assuming he really is retiring) now cotto and margarito will be fighting for the lineal championship as cotto was the second best welterweight next to mayweather...and margarito wasnt 3rd but he wasnt THAT far behind) so logically these are 2 of (if not THEE) best welterweights still fighting... so the winner will be the LINEAL champion even if mayweather wasnt beat. You first did a pretty good analysis, then went arbitrary. If you go back enough, when no one was a champion, no one was either born a champion or God came down and Christened him as the Champion of the World (which is how royalties have solved this "but if you go way back, eventually, your family were also peasants"), then there really is no linear champion, nor has ever been. -You countries with monarchies, apply this also to your folk- Then you went the other way and utilized it to justify the linear championship as something that is created either as a 2 top guy fighting game etc., that is, you -or the promoter, or the boxing entity, or whomever- decides to crown a champion and call the linear afterwards... ...then you go again arbitrary by calling Cotto the second best welterweight (I also do), but something people will and CAN disagree with, because it's not objective... just as boxing rankings themselves are pretty much a subjective joke. Take the WBA January rankings for WW. There was no #1 ranked guy, and the top ranked opponent, #2, was none other than Luis Collazo, followed by Linares and Klose. Mosley, Berto and Judah were ranked 6th, 7th and 8th, respectively. But you analysis really, ends with no line, and good point, there has never EVEN BEEN a legitimate line.

Just another weak ass attempt to discredit an Insignificant fighter. PBF is gone from the sport, LET IT GO!

Then we don't have to talk about linear champions anymore. Call a guy "THE CHAMP" in any way you want it, be it a "Ring Belt", a box off between the #1 and #2 challengers, a tournament, an unbiased analysis of X or Y fighter's strengths and weaknesses... but please, don't sell me a fallacy just because it sounds good on paper. There have been great champions, paper champions, undisputed champions, ATG champions... but linear champions died long ago. Now i got your point. :D maybe we just renamed the term "linear Champion" to "The Real Champion" :D The fighter makes the belt, not the other way around. question: Do you consider Pac's victory over barrera a legitimate Featherweight championship?

1. That's called being arbitrary. The reality is that the line was broken when Leonard vacated. The #1 and #2 guys can fight any day and it doesn't make up for the fact that the belt was vacated, and they won a vacant belt. 2. Again, if you unify all the championships, you become an undisputed champ, not a linear champ. This post shows that you simply dont like the 'Linear Championship' stuff. If the champion vacates. The 2 best fighter square off for a new line. damn its very simple.

You dont think Shane Mosley is the BEST Welterweight in those days?