Lineal Belt > Alphabet Belt

Wasn't FMJ flamed for fighting paper champs rather than true competition? It's really stupid imo. In the case with Mayweather, it's more of a case where he still gets criticized for fighting a lineal champ (Baldomir) rather than just a title-holder (Margarito) back in 2006. The only paper champ he's beaten in a division where he never fought the true lineal champ was beating Gatti at 140 when Tszyu (and then Hatton) were lineal at 140. There was no clearcut lineal champ or even "top guy" at 154 when Mayweather beat DLH.

Lineal titles are what it's about. Ring belt is more respected than the alphabet belts. By smart people anyways.

It's often the case, but not always. It really just depends on the situation. Foreman was the lineal champ from 1994 to 1997, and then Briggs was awarded that crown when the judges decided to give him that decision against Foreman. Meanwhile, guys like Holyfield and Lewis were doing better work. Likewise for Spinks being the lineal champ at HW before facing Tyson, while Tyson was cleaning out the division when Spinks was fighting Tangstead. Having a lineal claim adds to the "historic" aspect of things, but has to be taken into context by looking at what's going on around that time.

Ok so following this logic, would it be better legacy wise, to fight a David Diaz just to obtain as many belt as you can, rather than a Hatton? A Barerra? He already beat those 3 pretty badly so why your ass still itching? Blame not the fans but the boxing commissions of not fixing those uncertain rules.. Normal boxing fans would believe only if they heard wbc, wba, ibf, or wbo... those ring and lineal thingee are not known to casual boxing fans unless the commission fix that papers and put that lineal on top of all... If you didn't notice, I added the letter 'A' barrera, 'A' hatton which implies that I was referring to 'someone like', Barerra, or someone like Hatton in context . It's just ridiculous for people not to recognize say, Pacquiao's win over Barerra and Hatton who's arugably 'the man' on the said division even if they were not major belt holders and would rather recognize Diaz's belt. Who will be better to beat legacywise: Erdei or Dawson? In other words you cannot put up a rule saying that linearity is always better than alphabet. *end thread* I never said that it always the case. It's usually the case and it's highly unusual for someone to get a lineal championship if he ain't all that.

Who will be better to beat legacywise: Erdei or Dawson? In other words you cannot put up a rule saying that linearity is always better than alphabet. *end thread*

People complain of fighters picking weak champions, and when fighter picks a Lineal champion, they don't recognize it. They claim that in order for you to be a champion, you'd have to get a Major Sanctioned belt.. Wasn't FMJ flamed for fighting paper champs rather than true competition? It's really stupid imo. Ok so following this logic, would it be better legacy wise, to fight a David Diaz just to obtain as many belt as you can, rather than a Hatton? A Barerra? Oh and if you say yes, you'd then accuse the fighter of evading real competition no? He already beat those 3 pretty badly so why your ass still itching? Blame not the fans but the boxing commissions of not fixing those uncertain rules.. Normal boxing fans would believe only if they heard wbc, wba, ibf, or wbo... those ring and lineal thingee are not known to casual boxing fans unless the commission fix that papers and put that lineal on top of all...