Originally posted by jas
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
My new Boxing History Quiz
Collapse
-
-
People often consider the Ring champ as lineal. Wiki even refers the Ring champ as "their own lineal champ". There is a difference however between what was originally lineal and Ring Champ.
For example: The Ring actually officially recognized Larry Holmes as Ring champion the night he beat Leroy Jones because on the same night Mike Weaver beat John Tate and Holmes had beaten Weaver in a championship bout.(unrelated but Jones was also the last man to beat Weaver before Holmes)
At the same time Holmes did not claim the "lineal" belt for that, he claimed it on the night he beat Muhammad Ali, the last lineal champion.
In 2002 The Ring Magazine was frustrated that the majority of "Ring Belts" were vacant and decided to name champions based on number one fighting number two(based on their own rankings). In recent times many
fans(Including Cliff Roid) have associated this with what was and has been referred to lineal champion.
However lineal champion actually came from a time where there was only one champ in nearly every division. Perhaps fans felt the same frustration that the Ring felt and wanted to have champions or they gave credit to the magazine's recognized champions, but the idea of naming a fighter lineal champion while they hold only a piece of any title goes against what lineal originally meant, no matter how unpopular this old tradition might be in here today.
Wlad deserves the Ring title and I would definitely agree but to name him lineal champion because he beat the number two contender in Chagaev while Vitali was still fighting and the WBC titlist goes against what the idea of lineal really was.Last edited by TBear; 03-27-2014, 05:35 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by titanium View PostHe knocked him down at the ropes but not through or out of the ring. Funny that I watched it just last night.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2FOqDTK7W0Last edited by Anthony342; 03-27-2014, 07:05 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by TBear View PostPeople often consider the Ring champ as lineal. Wiki even refers the Ring champ as "their own lineal champ". There is a difference however between what was originally lineal and Ring Champ.
For example: The Ring actually officially recognized Larry Holmes as Ring champion the night he beat Leroy Jones because on the same night Mike Weaver beat John Tate and Holmes had beaten Weaver in a championship bout.(unrelated but Jones was also the last man to beat Weaver before Holmes)
At the same time Holmes did not claim the "lineal" belt for that, he claimed it on the night he beat Muhammad Ali, the last lineal champion.
In 2002 The Ring Magazine was frustrated that the majority of "Ring Belts" were vacant and decided to name champions based on number one fighting number two(based on their own rankings). In recent times many
fans(Including Cliff Roid) have associated this with what was and has been referred to lineal champion.
However lineal champion actually came from a time where there was only one champ in nearly every division. Perhaps fans felt the same frustration that the Ring felt and wanted to have champions or they gave credit to the magazine's recognized champions, but the idea of naming a fighter lineal champion while they hold only a piece of any title goes against what lineal originally meant, no matter how unpopular this old tradition might be in here today.
Wlad deserves the Ring title and I would definitely agree but to name him lineal champion because he beat the number two contender in Chagaev while Vitali was still fighting and the WBC titlist goes against what the idea of lineal really was.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Anthony342 View PostWell then, with Vitali now retired, what if Wlad then wins the WBC belt at some point. Wouldn't that then, according to that tradition, make him leneal champion. Lineal is supposed to mean you beat the fighter who previously held the belt that was the best in that weight class. I believe it's referred to as someone who "beat the guy who beat the guy".Last edited by TBear; 03-27-2014, 08:06 PM.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Scott9945 View PostSo if Wladimir beats the winner of Stiverne-Arreola for Vitali's title would that get it done?
Remember Mayweather was recognized as lineal champ when he beat Baldomir. Well Baldomir beat Judah, who beat Cory Spinks. Spinks started the line(lineal) by unifying the titles with Mayorga who had two.
If you trace all three titles, they were vacant awhile back but Spinks was considered the lineal champion.
However if the line is still alive, undisputed won't take it from the lineal champion. Such was the case when Mike Tyson unified all the belts but still had to beat Michael Spinks for the honor.
Comment
-
Originally posted by TBear View PostIt would start there. If there is no linage or lineal champion it would start with the first undisputed champion.
Remember Mayweather was recognized as lineal champ when he beat Baldomir. Well Baldomir beat Judah, who beat Cory Spinks. Spinks started the line(lineal) by unifying the titles with Mayorga who had two.
If you trace all three titles, they were vacant awhile back but Spinks was considered the lineal champion.
However if the line is still alive, undisputed won't take it from the lineal champion. Such was the case when Mike Tyson unified all the belts but still had to beat Michael Spinks for the honor.
Comment
-
Originally posted by jas View Post, holding all 4 major world title belts. back in the days they didn't have 4 belts so how did they crown an undisputed champion?
Originally posted by jas View Postthere is a difference between linear and lineal.
Comment
Comment