Is Mosley vs Mayweather for the Lineal Title

Thanks Cliff. That clears up my question in regards to tracing lineage. Now I have another question in gardsto a point that you made earlier of the Johnson vs. Jeffries bout, and Johnson obtaining the lineal rights by beating Jim. Tommy Burns won that belt off of win over Marvin Hart. Marvin Hart fought for the vacant title left by Jeffries. Being that Jeffries was not going to un-retire until he was begged to do so by the nation(US). It is safe to say that Jeffries would not have come out of retirement if Jack did not beat Tommy in Australia, right? I thought that by design(being that there was only one belt) Marvin was not the Lineal champ because he fought for a vacant belt. But Tommy on the other hand was the lineal champ because he beat Marvin for the strap, which in turn would make Jack the lineal champ since he beat Tommy. From how you have explained how lineage transfers hands. If Jack would not have beat Tommy then HW lineage would have been lost, what would have been done in that case? Right. Burns was the recognized champion. Johnson had to beat him (though Burns was lightly regarded).

It's not in all cases. Sometimes the lineage falls vacant. usually a new lineage can be identified through a process of elimination. Easiest way is picking up all the belts. If one can't for politic reasons but beats all the top contenders, that can also work. In the case of Flyweight, Canto was the recognized king in the late 70s, the man he beat twice (after a loss in their first) Betulio Gonzalez won the other available belt late in his reign, solidifying what was widely perceived anyways. That happened to be the WBC belt and, through circumstance, remains a straight line lineage; the longest running right now. Thanks Cliff. That clears up my question in regards to tracing lineage. Now I have another question in gardsto a point that you made earlier of the Johnson vs. Jeffries bout, and Johnson obtaining the lineal rights by beating Jim. Tommy Burns won that belt off of win over Marvin Hart. Marvin Hart fought for the vacant title left by Jeffries. Being that Jeffries was not going to un-retire until he was begged to do so by the nation(US). It is safe to say that Jeffries would not have come out of retirement if Jack did not beat Tommy in Australia, right? I thought that by design(being that there was only one belt) Marvin was not the Lineal champ because he fought for a vacant belt. But Tommy on the other hand was the lineal champ because he beat Marvin for the strap, which in turn would make Jack the lineal champ since he beat Tommy. From how you have explained how lineage transfers hands. If Jack would not have beat Tommy then HW lineage would have been lost, what would have been done in that case?

mosley didnt retire, he is still there and willing to fight the best competition out there. he is #1 at ww, and im not even a fan of him.

Cliff, I really appreciate your appearance in this thread to answer these questions indepth. I am soaking up your knowledge of this sport, and have a greater understanding of the inner workings of our sport. I have a question though. History shows that at one time there was one belt per weight class, as time has passed and jr. divisions were added, as well as sanctioning bodies. My question is.......How is lineage traced through the separate sanctioning bodies back to the "original" one belt? It's not in all cases. Sometimes the lineage falls vacant. usually a new lineage can be identified through a process of elimination. Easiest way is picking up all the belts. If one can't for politic reasons but beats all the top contenders, that can also work. In the case of Flyweight, Canto was the recognized king in the late 70s, the man he beat twice (after a loss in their first) Betulio Gonzalez won the other available belt late in his reign, solidifying what was widely perceived anyways. That happened to be the WBC belt and, through circumstance, remains a straight line lineage; the longest running right now.

Yes. Not sure when it's running but it's turned in. Keep eyes peeled. Not Moreno (we can hope for later). Montiel. And not sure. Thanks. My fault.

He'd have a solid case based on his run in winning and defending his belt. Not sure without seeing a fight. Cliff, I really appreciate your appearance in this thread to answer these questions indepth. I am soaking up your knowledge of this sport, and have a greater understanding of the inner workings of our sport. I have a question though. History shows that at one time there was one belt per weight class, as time has passed and jr. divisions were added, as well as sanctioning bodies. My question is.......How is lineage traced through the separate sanctioning bodies back to the "original" one belt?

mayweathere vs pacquiao will be for 147lbs domination

Have you done the the top 25 HWs of all time? I saw part 1 but is part 2 done? Yes. Not sure when it's running but it's turned in. Keep eyes peeled. Naw Bruh. Keep asking the questions that you are asking. I am learning right along with you from Cliff. Say do you know if the Hasegawa vs. Moreno match is going to be televised? Not Moreno (we can hope for later). Montiel. And not sure.

Not to hijack the thread. But, on the p4p thread you mentioned Anselmo Moreno. Who I think is really one of the most underrated fighters in the sport. And, I give him a 50-50 shot to beat Hasegawa. My question is if Moreno beats Cermeno, who is also a good fighter, does Moreno crack the top 10 P4P list? Naw Bruh. Keep asking the questions that you are asking. I am learning right along with you from Cliff. Say do you know if the Hasegawa vs. Moreno match is going to be televised?

He'd have a solid case based on his run in winning and defending his belt. Not sure without seeing a fight. Have you done the the top 25 HWs of all time? I saw part 1 but is part 2 done?

Not to hijack the thread. But, on the p4p thread you mentioned Anselmo Moreno. Who I think is really one of the most underrated fighters in the sport. And, I give him a 50-50 shot to beat Hasegawa. My question is if Moreno beats Cermeno, who is also a good fighter, does Moreno crack the top 10 P4P list? He'd have a solid case based on his run in winning and defending his belt. Not sure without seeing a fight.

I agree with Ring; Wlad is. CBZ doesn't to my knowledge. Not to hijack the thread. But, on the p4p thread you mentioned Anselmo Moreno. Who I think is really one of the most underrated fighters in the sport. And, I give him a 50-50 shot to beat Hasegawa. My question is if Moreno beats Cermeno, who is also a good fighter, does Moreno crack the top 10 P4P list?

Thanks Cliff for this Cliff, I have another question. I read that people didn't really want to have the winner of Wlad-Chagaev as the lineal champ at HW. Do you and Cyberboxing recognize Wald as the lineal champ at HW? Or do you guys see it as vacant? I agree with Ring; Wlad is. CBZ doesn't to my knowledge.

The lasy lineal champion at 147lbs was mayweather when he beat baldoimir

Shane is the champ. Margarito beat cotto and mosley beat Margarito. When Floyd beats Mosley he will be the champ. Cotto won that B.s WBO title from who ? Oh yeah some guy named Jennings who I never heard of. Pacquaio is not the LC at 147. Nobody is saying Pac is the lineal champ at 147. The argument is that he is ranked at #1.

Digging into the way back machine, here's a post I made in 2008 here: http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4362292&highlight=Lineal+Ayala#post4362292 Ring's titles are not the same as lineal titles; they match with some but not all correct lines. Most of their vacant title fills have been okay but not all, and there are currently seven champs. They are kept in BoxingScene's quarterly ratings as well: http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/vi...boxing-ratings And on the topic: http://www.maxboxing.com/Cliff/Rold040908.asp What About Ring? Fans used to hearing more frequently about ‘real’ World champions on HBO and ESPN in recent years may be wondering why the lineages noted above don’t entirely line up with Ring Magazine since Ring is often the standard used by those media giants. That’s simple. When Ring decided to start naming champions again, they elected to ignore some established history, including their own. That’s a problem when considering that their policy is supposed to be about the notion that titles are won, and lost, only in the ring. In other words, Ring looks like it is all about restoring lineage to titles but, if there was an election that said they could just call a do-over on history, I missed it. While Ring left the game of tracing ‘the man who beat the man’ or at least the ‘man who became the man’ in the late 80’s, websites like the Cyber Boxing Zone (CBZ), and the magazine Boxing Illustrated well into the 90s, were still protecting Boxing’s history. So, with renewed discussion at this site, and around the sport, about the merits of Ring’s championships, it’s time to take another look at how things have played out on this front. Loyal readers will find this subject old territory for me, but MaxBoxing readers not as familiar with my work can quickly be caught up on the specifics. When Ring began recognizing champions again, sans alphabelts, earlier this decade, they did so by declaring, among others, the titles at 108, 112, 115, and 126 lbs. vacant and recognizing Roy Jones as Light Heavyweight champion. Jones was easy for most people to swallow because he was, well, Roy. However, his ‘undisputed’ title reign was built on sanctioning body recognition, stripped alphabelts, and occasionally top foes. They ignored the history passed from Hill to Dariusz Michalczewski. They reasoned, paraphrasing, that the other divisions were in disarray and it would be too confusing to retroactively trace the lines so vacant won. Was that really the case? Well, let’s say it wouldn’t have taken much looking to be un-confused. If any of you have the February 2008 issue of Ring handy, open it up to page 128 and you’ll see that Sot Chitalada and Barry McGuigan were, correctly, recognized as World champs at Flyweight and Featherweight respectively in March 1986. Those lines never broke, and they traced back farther than ’86. When Ring started noting champs again between 2001 and 2002, that would have meant Wonjongkam and Naseem Hamed. Since becoming a recognizer of championships again, other problems have arisen with Ring. Among them are: • Crowning Rosendo Alvarez at 108 while the lineage ran through Jorge Arce in a straight line from Michael Carbajal-Humberto Gonzalez; • Ignoring the lineage at 115 lbs. that belonged to Masamori Tokuyama in a straight line to the Jiro Watanabe-Payao Poontarat fight in 1984; • Crowning Paulie Ayala at 122 lbs. for his one clear win over Bones Adams in 2002 after three arguably bad decisions in a row for Ayala against Hugo Dianzo, Johnny Tapia and Bones Adams and with no other wins in the division. Ayala never defended his hollow crown; and let us not forget… • The coronation of big brother Vitali Klitschko as Heavyweight champion for his first win over a currently rated Ring top ten fighter, ever, against Corrie Sanders in 2004. Much as he was loathsome to watch, John Ruiz’s rebound from the Roy Jones loss with wins over Hasim Rahman and Fres Oquendo were more meritorious than anything Klitscko had actually finished when he entered the ring with Sanders. To their credit, they have been on the ball on other occasions. Their recognizing Jose Luis Castillo-Juan Lazcano as being for the then-vacant Lightweight title in 2004 appeared correct and was validated by an excellent series of fights that culminated in Castillo-Corrales I. Evidenced above, most of their titlists are accurate to date, so it's not as if they're way out of the ballpark there even if they did back into history rather than embracing it. Finally, through much of modern Boxing’s rich and unique history, Ring’s belts have been a constant from old pictures of Nat Fleischer and Ray Robinson to the casket of Apollo Creed. When a fighter proves to be his divisions true champion, having that belt there is a bonus and a cool aesthetic. But… This Ring review is inspired in large part by Steve Kim’s piece here at Maxboxing on Monday. Steve and I don’t approach this issue from the same direction or even reach all the same conclusions, but for those like Steve who might feel no obligation to recognize Bernard Hopkins or Joel Casamayor as sole champions, Ring provides the role model. After all, if Ring can decide that legitimate lineage is discardable, then why can’t their placebo lineage at 175 or decision to recognize the weight-skewed Casamayor-Corrales III also be discarded by knowledgeable boxing people based on the results unfolding before them? Thanks Cliff for this Cliff, I have another question. I read that people didn't really want to have the winner of Wlad-Chagaev as the lineal champ at HW. Do you and Cyberboxing recognize Wald as the lineal champ at HW? Or do you guys see it as vacant?

Shane is the champ. Margarito beat cotto and mosley beat Margarito. When Floyd beats Mosley he will be the champ. Cotto won that B.s WBO title from who ? Oh yeah some guy named Jennings who I never heard of. Pacquaio is not the LC at 147.

Do you know why The Ring didn't follow the history of lineage? For example at flyweight they have the title vacant but Koki is the lineal champ. And, even at 175 they had Roy as the champ followed by Tarver-Johnson-Tarver-Hopkins-Calzaghe. But, the lineal claim was really from Hill-Dariusz M-Gonzalez-Erdei. Why didn't they follow the lineal history? Digging into the way back machine, here's a post I made in 2008 here: http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4362292&highlight=Lineal+Ayala#post4362292 Ring's titles are not the same as lineal titles; they match with some but not all correct lines. Most of their vacant title fills have been okay but not all, and there are currently seven champs. They are kept in BoxingScene's quarterly ratings as well: http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/vi...boxing-ratings And on the topic: http://www.maxboxing.com/Cliff/Rold040908.asp What About Ring? Fans used to hearing more frequently about ‘real’ World champions on HBO and ESPN in recent years may be wondering why the lineages noted above don’t entirely line up with Ring Magazine since Ring is often the standard used by those media giants. That’s simple. When Ring decided to start naming champions again, they elected to ignore some established history, including their own. That’s a problem when considering that their policy is supposed to be about the notion that titles are won, and lost, only in the ring. In other words, Ring looks like it is all about restoring lineage to titles but, if there was an election that said they could just call a do-over on history, I missed it. While Ring left the game of tracing ‘the man who beat the man’ or at least the ‘man who became the man’ in the late 80’s, websites like the Cyber Boxing Zone (CBZ), and the magazine Boxing Illustrated well into the 90s, were still protecting Boxing’s history. So, with renewed discussion at this site, and around the sport, about the merits of Ring’s championships, it’s time to take another look at how things have played out on this front. Loyal readers will find this subject old territory for me, but MaxBoxing readers not as familiar with my work can quickly be caught up on the specifics. When Ring began recognizing champions again, sans alphabelts, earlier this decade, they did so by declaring, among others, the titles at 108, 112, 115, and 126 lbs. vacant and recognizing Roy Jones as Light Heavyweight champion. Jones was easy for most people to swallow because he was, well, Roy. However, his ‘undisputed’ title reign was built on sanctioning body recognition, stripped alphabelts, and occasionally top foes. They ignored the history passed from Hill to Dariusz Michalczewski. They reasoned, paraphrasing, that the other divisions were in disarray and it would be too confusing to retroactively trace the lines so vacant won. Was that really the case? Well, let’s say it wouldn’t have taken much looking to be un-confused. If any of you have the February 2008 issue of Ring handy, open it up to page 128 and you’ll see that Sot Chitalada and Barry McGuigan were, correctly, recognized as World champs at Flyweight and Featherweight respectively in March 1986. Those lines never broke, and they traced back farther than ’86. When Ring started noting champs again between 2001 and 2002, that would have meant Wonjongkam and Naseem Hamed. Since becoming a recognizer of championships again, other problems have arisen with Ring. Among them are: • Crowning Rosendo Alvarez at 108 while the lineage ran through Jorge Arce in a straight line from Michael Carbajal-Humberto Gonzalez; • Ignoring the lineage at 115 lbs. that belonged to Masamori Tokuyama in a straight line to the Jiro Watanabe-Payao Poontarat fight in 1984; • Crowning Paulie Ayala at 122 lbs. for his one clear win over Bones Adams in 2002 after three arguably bad decisions in a row for Ayala against Hugo Dianzo, Johnny Tapia and Bones Adams and with no other wins in the division. Ayala never defended his hollow crown; and let us not forget… • The coronation of big brother Vitali Klitschko as Heavyweight champion for his first win over a currently rated Ring top ten fighter, ever, against Corrie Sanders in 2004. Much as he was loathsome to watch, John Ruiz’s rebound from the Roy Jones loss with wins over Hasim Rahman and Fres Oquendo were more meritorious than anything Klitscko had actually finished when he entered the ring with Sanders. To their credit, they have been on the ball on other occasions. Their recognizing Jose Luis Castillo-Juan Lazcano as being for the then-vacant Lightweight title in 2004 appeared correct and was validated by an excellent series of fights that culminated in Castillo-Corrales I. Evidenced above, most of their titlists are accurate to date, so it's not as if they're way out of the ballpark there even if they did back into history rather than embracing it. Finally, through much of modern Boxing’s rich and unique history, Ring’s belts have been a constant from old pictures of Nat Fleischer and Ray Robinson to the casket of Apollo Creed. When a fighter proves to be his divisions true champion, having that belt there is a bonus and a cool aesthetic. But… This Ring review is inspired in large part by Steve Kim’s piece here at Maxboxing on Monday. Steve and I don’t approach this issue from the same direction or even reach all the same conclusions, but for those like Steve who might feel no obligation to recognize Bernard Hopkins or Joel Casamayor as sole champions, Ring provides the role model. After all, if Ring can decide that legitimate lineage is discardable, then why can’t their placebo lineage at 175 or decision to recognize the weight-skewed Casamayor-Corrales III also be discarded by knowledgeable boxing people based on the results unfolding before them?

IMO I still think Shane is the #1 ww. He is. Not his fault he lost out on some fights due to a figging earthquake and got ducked in favor of Cotto by Pac's team. He knocked the #1 stiff and now has the last real champ on tap. That allows his #1 to stay.

Ring and our ratings were the same: Tony, Cotto, Mosley. I considered Mosley but said before the fight he couldn't be recognized without beating Cotto whereas, with Williams campaigning already at 54, Margarito could have claimed the title. CBZ is closer to reality than Ring ratings which say May 1 can't fill the crown. Do you know why The Ring didn't follow the history of lineage? For example at flyweight they have the title vacant but Koki is the lineal champ. And, even at 175 they had Roy as the champ followed by Tarver-Johnson-Tarver-Hopkins-Calzaghe. But, the lineal claim was really from Hill-Dariusz M-Gonzalez-Erdei. Why didn't they follow the lineal history?