boxers win championships in the ring not based off speculation and popularity

You explicitly (and directly) said "GGG is the man at 160". As you just said, if you told me something directly then i cant tell you that you didnt mean it..... so you did mean to say it ;) Well, being "the man" in boxing custom means being the lineal champ, which again you meant to say (despite being wrong). I've held you accountable to this incongruity, but you are however entitled to backtrack however far you deem necessary :) No, it doesn't. The man can mean such a variety of things that it's almost embarrassing that a poster would try to act like it means whatever he says. Big words don't make you any more right, (our in your case less wrong).

You explicitly call Golovkin "the man" which is boxing-speak for "the lineal champ". When we in boxing say, "to be the man, you have to beat the man" we are discussing lineage and lineal champions. if i have misplaced judgment anywhere (which i did), it's that I showed too much faith in you and presumed that you understood this :) I can see you think you're smart, but don't act like you posting facts because you aren't. When I said GGG is the man at 160, I mean he's the best fighter there. As I already (clearly) stated. So if I tell you something directly, there's no way possible that you can tell me that's what I didn't mean. Truth is you've put too much fate in what you wanted me to say. But what you want to hear and what I said are not the same.

You cannot be referring to Cotto GGG. Because GGG is the man at 160, not Cotto. Martinez wanted no part of GGG and Cotto had better duck the $h!t outa GGG. This post would have made sense at 147. But the long time bane of 160 is the man there. Not a fat welterweight who gambled for glory and got it. You were inspecific. I sought clarity on your part, so I presented you with options designed to make you be clear. You are clear now. You accept Cotto's lineage (a factual thing) but you think that he isnt the "true champ" in your own eyes (an opinion thing). Your opinion is GGG is the "true champ", my opinion is that Cotto is "true champ" (lol this feels so silly), yet both our opinions are trumped by the fact that Cotto is the world-recognised lineal champ. You are entitled to your opinion, and I am unmoved so long as you and others recognise who actually earned the recognition of champ, via lineage and thus via fact. Pretty sure we're done here. You need to be done. Because I haven't stated anything about true champion and lineal champion. The original post there for you to observe again. But my opinion, is that GGG is the best fighter at 160, (hence my calling him the man). I don't care about Cotto's lineal title. I'm happy for him because I am in fact a fan. But the only thing I said or in relation to Cotto/GGG is that GGG would beat the living crap out of Cotto and Cotto better not fight him. I never uttered a word about who is the real lineal, or who the true champ is, so I guess we are done here, tata.

Cotto is considered to be the lineal champion. What is being asked is that he further legitimizes his last performance by giving other MW's an opportunity. If he decides that 3G is too risky, then fight Quillin/Rubio/Murray/Soliman. The worse thing Cotto could do is not defend the belt at least once. If Canelo/Cotto is to be made, make it @160 so there's a chance that the lineage can continue.

dude you might as well argue with the wall as try to talk sense to that turd :lol1: Yeah so I can see. To think his first post in this thread was "LacedUp is an idiot". Oh well, just trying to figure out who's alt he is.

But why does there need to be a definition of something that goes by on a case-by-case basis? As I said, the rule is you beat the man to become the man - but there are exceptions as I have clearly eluded to in this thread on multiple occasions. dude you might as well argue with the wall as try to talk sense to that turd :lol1:

Not quite. Timing is of essense. This was about a year after Ali's second fight with Spinks, and nobody was certain if Ali had retired for good or not. Again timing is the key. I don't know how real nerds deal with this stuff. Cliff Rold would know, but at the time of Wlad winning over Chagaev, it had been clear for years that LL was retired and definetely not a top HW. See above. Yes, well, so Vitali wasn't really the lineal champ when he beat Sanders? I mean, we know Vitali had his ranking artificially improved as we have learned from Cliff Rold in the past. But it was only a couple of months or so after Lennox had retired, so technically, even though Lennox had informed the ring magazine of his retirement, thereby giving up his lineage, he was still the lineal champion even though the lineal championship was vacant? Also, even though Wladimir Klitschko vs Ruslan Chagaev was touted as the lineal championship - I think there's more of a case of Povetkin-Wladimir being the lineal championship as Vitali had retired. Even though Vitali was Wladimir's brother, we shouldn't make exceptions to the rule of lineage - or so some posters would have us believe. I honestly can't see much sense in this argument. When you retire, you retire. And Ali had given up his belt as a statement of his retirement as well. It was most certainly also clear at the time of the Holmes-Ali fight that Ali's condition had worsened and he was nowhere near the fighter he once was - and definitely not a top HW either-

This is the first time you actually divulged what you think. You have now admitted that you think that there are no agreed upon boxing customs that decide who the champion of a weight class is. You think that all the currently and historically recognised champions of each weight division are all merely opinion-based and up for discussion. Fine by me. Im just pleased i got you to admit that. The rest of us can now discard you without reprieve. I posted my belief that there is no universally accepted method pages ago, so you're incorrect that I only admitted it last post. There are accepted means of determining who holds sanctioning body titles, such as the WBC flyweight title, but champion as you're using it is just a concept that takes no official form and as this thread indicates it's debatable as to what one must accomplish to become the top fighter in a division rather than just a titleholder. There used to be one world title in each division, so those who held them could claim to be the divisional champion in the sense of holding the only world title, but those were only titles of the first sense and today there are multiple per division, so fighters cannot make the same claim just based on winning a title.

So define it! Simple. You think that the rule is: "to be the man, you have to beat the man, except for when you say so"? Or "to be the man, you have to beat the man, except when the lineage is held hostage for 2 years"?. I am challenging you to define your understanding (not deny mine) of how boxing heritage deciphers who the champion is in a weight class and you repetitively avoid this challenge. But why does there need to be a definition of something that goes by on a case-by-case basis? As I said, the rule is you beat the man to become the man - but there are exceptions as I have clearly eluded to in this thread on multiple occasions.

To me this is really simple, once your the Lineal champ you have a responsibility to fight the best in your division since you hold the the legit title. MW top 5 Cotto-champ GGG-#1 Gale-#2 Quillin-#3 Sergio-#4 Soliman-#5 If Cotto doesn't fight GGG, like Sergio did its because its a risk and clear indication who really is the best MW at the moment. Abel Sanchez said it him self if your the Lineal champ either fight at MW or drop the titles. IDC about making the most money with Canelo as fans that's not are problem.

Well, then Holmes became the lineal champ when he beat Shavers who'd beaten Norton for the #1 contender spot. It's the same thing. Not quite. Timing is of essense. This was about a year after Ali's second fight with Spinks, and nobody was certain if Ali had retired for good or not. You can't just retire, then come back and claim lineage. It's the same as saying LL is still the champ. Again timing is the key. I don't know how real nerds deal with this stuff. Cliff Rold would know, but at the time of Wlad winning over Chagaev, it had been clear for years that LL was retired and definetely not a top HW. I think the situation with holmes is highly debatable. And I think he lost his right to be called the true champ when he retired after the second spinks fight. See above.

Again more and more denial of my point, and no assertion of your own point. This is slimy. You outrightly refuse to point out what is the universally held custom/tradition in boxing that defines who the man is in a weight class. It seems that you dont believe there is one, and that you believe that there is no custom in boxing that defines who the champion of a weight class is? Do you think there is no custom that does this, or are you just unwilling/unable to define it? It's simply one or the other. There is no reason why my argument that being lineal champion doesn't make someone the top fighter in the division relies on the existence of another accepted method for determining who 'the man' in the division is. I don't believe there is currently an established and largely agreed upon method for determining who the top fighter in the division is. There could be several different possible methods, such as going by lineage, number of title defenses or belts held, or assessments of a fighter's quality of opposition and performances. In each case subjectivity is involved, and a more objective measure isn't necessarily a better one; ranking fighters based on how often they wore Everlast gloves would be entirely objective.

He denied that the universally accepted custom in boxing is that "to be the man, you have to beat the man". He said over and over that this is not a universally held custom. So i ask again (to you and to him): if the above is wrong, then what is the universally accepted custom in boxing that deciphers who "the man" or the champion of a weight class is? Define this clearly, like I have. Listen, it's not set in stone. To be the man, you've got to beat the man. I agree. However, as I stated in the other thread that lead to this thread, it has it's flaws and is therefore not always true. As in this case, was Martinez really THE man? He probably lost to Martin Murray, had multiple knee operations, was inactive, old, had 60 fights on his back. Only on paper was he THE man. Which is a reason for why that lineage = the man theory is heavily flawed.

I answered already.

It's not a universally accepted custom in boxing, that "to be the man, you have to beat the man"? Wtf? Hahah. So what is the universally accepted custom in boxing that deciphers who "the man" or the champion of a weight class is? Break the news to us all. We're eagerly watching this space. No, it's not universally accepted, as is evidence by this thread, many others, and several rankings. That comment can also be construed to mean that you have to beat a champion to take their title, which is not the same as saying that a lineal champion is the top fighter in the division. It's up for debate as to how the top fighter in each division should be determined. I believe lineage is a poor method and a more subjective measure would be superior.

It's not a universally accepted custom in boxing, that "to be the man, you have to beat the man"? Wtf? Hahah. So what is the universally accepted custom in boxing that deciphers who "the man" or the champion of a weight class is? Break the news to us all. We're eagerly watching this space. What he's saying is true though? Generally the man who beats the man, is the man. But there are many points in history where lineage gets broken up, people retire and come back, champions ducking the best fighters - champions not fighting and the other belt holder cleaning up the rest of the division. All these have frequently occurred throughout the history of boxing, which has led many historians to question the validity of lineage.

This scenario reminds me of Jake Lamotta's career in the 40s. Around 1943 Lamotta was considered by many including Ring Magazine to be the best MW in the world, but Tony Zale was the champion, and since Lamotta wouldn't play ball with the mob, he was denied a shot at the title, until 1949 when he decided to throw a fight for them, then they gave him his shot. Although boxing today isn't as dirty and corrupt as it was back then, but still pretty dirty that GGG more than likely will not get a shot at the lineal title, if ever. That's just disgusting. Didn't you hear? He's going to fight Solimon most likely by the end of the year.

There we go. That logic is as objective as the logic used be those claiming that Cotto is top fighter in the division.

Did you guys know that the actual Lineal Champion at Middleweight at the moment is Darren Barker? When Lineal Champion Ray Leonard returned from his 6 year retirement in 1997 and a whole 10 years since he won his Lineage in 1987, he defended his MW Lineage against Hector Camacho. Leonard was of course still the Lineal Champion in 1997, which is definitely a fact. After all, uttering the magic words of "retirement" doesn't mean anything, does it? You can only lose your Lineage in the ring, right? So, the new Lineal MW Champion Camacho kept his MW Lineage all the way up until 2003 defending it 11 times! Almost breaking Monzon's record, just three away, until he finally lost it to the great Chris Walsh. Chris Walsh then lost it in his next fight to Dirk Dzemski. Who then lost it to Sebastian Sylvester in his next fight. Who then lost it to Amin Asikainen in 2006 to then win it back of him in 2007 in an epic European Title/Lineal Title Unification fight!!! European Title AND Lineage on the line at the same time! Slvester than valiantly held on to his Lineage until 2008 losing to Felix Sturm. And then, after long last Felix Sturm lost his Lineage to Daniel Geale. Then, in 2013, Barker defied the odds and won the LINEAL MIDDLEWEIGHT TITLE OF THE WORLD!!! Strums epic chance at Lineage redemption is next week. December 7th on a card billed as "Battle of the Lineage" The epic rematch awaits just next week for the Middleweight Lineage!! Fun facts learnt from this thread; Bernard Hopkins held every belt at Middleweight but was never Lineal Champion. Sebastian Slyvester, 2 time Lineal Champ at MW. This is some how even more retarded than saying Ward is currently the Lineal LHW Champion. You didn't think that was possible, did you? So Sturm went on to beat Barker and then lose to Solimon...The very fighter that GGG is wanting to fight next. GGG about to be the REAL lineal middleweight champion by the end of the year.

Again, it is not subjective to say that the lineal champ of a division is the no.1 fighter in that division. That is the one and only requisite for being "the man/the champ", based on the heritage, history and traditions of boxing for centuries, NOT just my opinion. We were all born into the heritage and customs of this sport, and it is not up to us to challenge this. Im a firm believer in respecting the culture. Yes, it is entirely subjective to say that winning a lineal title makes someone the number one fighter in the division. The idea you support has been challenged for years and is not a fact or universally accepted custom, especially today in an environment that is much different than other generations. Nah. Wlad became lineal when he defeated Chagaev as he was the highest ranked possible contender (save for Vitali). What about Ali refusing to fight no.1 ranked Holmes for years? He then lost to Leon Spinks. When exactly did Ali lose his right to be called the TRUE champ? What made Chagaev the highest ranked possible contender?