My new Boxing History Quiz

[Humean]

If that were to happen then Cotto would be the real middleweight champion. I don't see why Golovkin should magically get anointed with that title when his best win is Macklin.

If Martinez loses to Cotto then Golovkin is clearly the best middleweight, that is why. No magic.

[BattlingNelson]

If that were to happen then Cotto would be the real middleweight champion. I don't see why Golovkin should magically get anointed with that title when his best win is Macklin.

This must also mean that Humean had Larry Holmes as champ after Ali lost to Spinks.

There's probably more oddities if that confusing rule was in effect.

[Ben Bolt]

you have all the belts, you are undisputed

Actually, wearing a WBC or WBA or any other sanctiong belt these days don't say much. The bodies themselves are to blame for devaluing the meaning of being a world champion.

'You have all the belts' and soon one or another body will figure out a way of depriving you of it.

WBC for ex., which has never recognized Wlad Klitschko and doesn't even bother to rank him, will come up with its own "world" heavyweight champ.
It's hard to take a boxing org seriously when it acts like that.

Edited some words here. At times, I have a tendency to fall into the "keyboard warrior" trap.

[Welsh Jon]

Good quiz though make it harder next time. Last question had me confused, I was thinking that Briggs won the title from the guy Wilder recently knocked out. I only got it right because Foreman was the only one I remember Briggs definitely fought.

Lineage is grossly overrated, beating the man who beat the man is only important if the man who beat the man is the same version of the man. A lot of the time lineage passes when the man who beat the man has declined with age. If Cotto beats Martinez then Cotto will be the lineal middleweight champion but if that was to happen then for me the crown of 'real' or 'legitimate' middleweight champion would pass from Martinez to Golovkin and not Cotto. Lineage would add little significance to me in light of a Cotto win.

I don't agree with your position on Cotto and Golovkin, since if Cotto beat even a past his best Martinez, that would still give him a more valid claim than Golovkin. I do see your point though. Beating the number 1 guy doesn't neccesairly make you the number 1 guy in the division.

[Welsh Jon]

This must also mean that Humean had Larry Holmes as champ after Ali lost to Spinks.

There's probably more oddities if that confusing rule was in effect.

I think it's fair to see Holmrs was the number 1 heavyweight in the world at that point in time.

[jas]

Why was Kostya Tszyu called the undisputed light welterweight champion even though he only had 3 belts?

The WBA , IBF and WBC are the three oldest belts. It was before 2007. By February 2007, All four major Organisations were recognised by each other.

[BattlingNelson]

I think it's fair to see Holmrs was the number 1 heavyweight in the world at that point in time.

Absolutely. But not champion.

[MisterHardtop]

Absolutely. But not champion.

I completely agree, Spinks beat Ali for the title, who was undefeated since winning THE CHAMPIONSHIP off Foreman. Whether or not Holmes was the best in the division by that stage in terms of skill in irrelevant, considering he hadn't won the necessary belt to lay claim to that title.

When Ali won the rematch against Spinks, he was once again recognised as champion, by this time, Holmes and Norton fought for a title, something which had been gifted to Norton by the WBC. Holmes was a titlist till Ali retired.

[jas]

we should have a master LINEAGE thread for all things LINEAL

[BattlingNelson]

we should have a master LINEAGE thread for all things LINEAL

Personally I think boxingscene's Cliff Rold is doing a fine job of keeping track. There's also TBRB.

Finally it seems as if a lot of posters right here in this section has little to no interest in lineage. Personally I care but that's a bit beside the point.