is there any difference between lineal champ and undisputed champion?

[mrrupo]

ok, this is something i've never paid much attention to because i dont really care that much, but what are the differences between all the types of champion you can be... here's my understanding as of now, but i could be way off...

Paper champ - you hold a belt (wbo, wba, ibf, wbc. dont even know if wbo belongs in there???)

Undisputed champ - you hold the wba, ibf, and wbc betls.

Lineal champ - you beat the guy who held the title of lineal champ before you (how did that guy get that title? and did that guy have to hold a belt?)

Ring champ - the guy that ring magazine calls the champ, but what is their criteria???

[Thread Stealer]

michael spinks was linear and ring champ in 1987-88, but tyson was called "undisputed champ" by having the wbc/wba/ibf belts.

it's pretty dumb though, how are you going to be "undisputed" when others like the ring and linear history DO dispute it?

[Easy-E]

The Undisputed Champion holds all the belts in their division.

The linear champion is one who beat who was considered the true welterweight champion, meaning regardless to sanctioning bodies or belts or bull****, its about who beat the true champion.

Good example of this is the weltweight championship:
Shane Mosley--Vernon Forrest--Ricardo Mayorga--Corey Spinks-Zab Judah- Carlos Baldomir-Floyd Mayweather.

[mrrupo]

michael spinks was linear and ring champ in 1987-88, but tyson was called "undisputed champ" by having the wbc/wba/ibf belts.

it's pretty dumb though, how are you going to be "undisputed" when others like the ring and linear history DO dispute it?

that seems so dumb. i mean, what constitutes a guy being called any kind of champion if no sanctioning body has him as champion??? i dont know, it seems like it's just a way to make money and keep boxing nerds like us arguing!