Does anyone here respect LINEAL championships?

[DuttyAlacrity]

With all these sanctioning bodies claiming world champions, I think it's more important than ever to recognize lineal championships. Sanctioning bodies have an ulterior motive: money. You don't pay their fees they strip you. It's a business. It's all about making money. How can we consider a fighter a champion when the belt he's wearing was stripped from another fighter for not paying his sanctioning fees?

Lineal Championships carry more weight than any other alphabet title out there. Many like to point out the fact that mayweather's WW championship is tainted because he won it from Baldomir. Why should it be? Baldomir beat the man who beat the man, his title reign is more legitmate than any of these alphabet titlist reigns. Forrest beat shane, mayorga beat forrest, spinks beat mayorga, judah beat spinks, bladomir beat judah. That's a legitmate title reign. The fact that he has not defended it against a legitimate ww is a different arguement. Let's not make this another mayweather thread. I don't hear anyone critizing Joe Louis' reign as heavyweight champ because he beat James Braddock "Cinderalla Man". James Braddock was a BUM before he beat Max Baer. Be that as it may, he deserves credit for beating the MAN and he's was the lineal champ period. Titlist get credit from me for being just that... titlist. Some get credit for being great fighters but they get no credit in my book for being world champions because they aren't.

[2501]

so then in your words, the belt makes the fighter, not the other way around? so if Jesse Feliciano were to have a GREAT night against a lineal champ and take the belt away from him, you would consider him THE BEST fighter of that division?

[x-PeROxiDE-x]

With all these sanctioning bodies claiming world champions, I think it's more important than ever to recognize lineal championships. Sanctioning bodies have an ulterior motive: money. You don't pay their fees they strip you. It's a business. It's all about making money. How can we consider a fighter a champion when the belt he's wearing was stripped from another fighter for not paying his sanctioning fees?

Lineal Championships carry more weight than any other alphabet title out there. Many like to point out the fact that mayweather's WW championship is tainted because he won it from Baldomir. Why should it be? Baldomir beat the man who beat the man, his title reign is more legitmate than any of these alphabet titlist reigns. Forrest beat shane, mayorga beat forrest, spinks beat mayorga, judah beat spinks, bladomir beat judah. That's a legitmate title reign. The fact that he has not defended it against a legitimate ww is a different arguement. Let's not make this another mayweather thread. I don't hear anyone critizing Joe Louis' reign as heavyweight champ because he beat James Braddock "Cinderalla Man". James Braddock was a BUM before he beat Max Baer. Be that as it may, he deserves credit for beating the MAN and he's was the lineal champ period. Titlist get credit from me for being just that... titlist. Some get credit for being great fighters but they get no credit in my book for being world champions because they aren't.

A champion is in the fighter, not the belt they hold.

Fighters make belts, not the other way around.

You would do well to remember that.

[DuttyAlacrity]

so then in your words, the belt makes the fighter, not the other way around? so if Jesse Feliciano were to have a GREAT night against a lineal champ and take the belt away from him, you would consider him THE BEST fighter of that division?

Nooooooo, not the best fighter of the division but the recognized world champ of the division. He should get more credit for that than some good fighter beating another good fighter for an alpabet title and calling himself world champ. Having a lineal championship doesn't make the fighter but it makes them CHAMPION.

[2501]

Nooooooo, not the best fighter of the division but the recognized world champ of the division. He should get more credit for that than some good fighter beating another good fighter for an alpabet title and calling himself world champ. Having a lineal championship doesn't make the fighter but it makes them CHAMPION.

Carlos Baldomir had 9 losses when he took the belt. not 9 losses like Johnson had to where a lot of them were robberies, but 9 losses which most were legit. Some to fighters with more than 14 losses. His prior biggest win was Gatti.

Dont site there and tell me Carlos Baldomir is a GREAT fighter because a divisional undisputed champ should be a GREAT fighter.

[DuttyAlacrity]

A champion is in the fighter, not the belt they hold.

Fighters make belts, not the other way around.

You would do well to remember that.

I agree, but they shouldn't be considered a world champ until they've earned that right. The only reason why James won the title to begin with was because of his heart. But i refuse to call someone a world champ just because they picked up some title that has no history.

[DuttyAlacrity]

Carlos Baldomir had 9 losses when he took the belt. not 9 losses like Johnson had to where a lot of them were robberies, but 9 losses which most were legit. Some to fighters with more than 14 losses. His prior biggest win was Gatti.

Dont site there and tell me Carlos Baldomir is a GREAT fighter because a divisional undisputed champ should be a GREAT fighter.

I did not say he was a GREAT fighter. BUT HE WAS THE WORLD WW CHAMP and he should get credit for that.
James Braddock had like 26 losses or some ****... does that not make his title reign legitimate?

[2501]

I did not say he was a GREAT fighter. BUT HE WAS THE WORLD WW CHAMP and he should get credit for that.
James Braddock had like 26 losses or some ****... does that not make his title reign legitimate?

James Braddock was a great fighter.

[DuttyAlacrity]

James Braddock was a great fighter.

If he never showed his heart and won that title from Max Baer you probably wouldn't even know who he was...

[abadger]

Boxing is a sport first and foremost, and like all sports it has to have a goal for its partcipants. The problem is that in a world of multiple belts it is extremely unclear which goal is worth aiming for and which have any value. Lineal championships are probably the best yardstick we have to measure a fighter by because if we ignored them we would be reduced to making subjective statements like "fighter X is better than fighter Y because his resume is stronger and his style is more impressive" which is all very well, but ultimately lacking in objective proof. When the man has beaten the man he takes possession of a marker which says "I am the best, beat me if you can" which gives his opponents a reason to fight him and the fans a context to place the fight in. Without this, boxing matches would cease to be meaningful competitive sport at all and become more like entertainment spectacles served up for the fans to make their own judgements about, which is not how it should be.

If we take this view then the question of which lineal titles we should pay attention to becomes very important. Not every belt holder in a division can really be its champ. At some stage we have to make the judgement on which title is the most legitimate. In boxing at the moment I'd say this has to be the Ring titles, which are the most strictly linear of all, except in the unavoidable instances where a champ retires or permanently leaves his weight class. Since this is inevitable we may as well accept it and respect the outcome of whatever eliminator is arranged, which is the only point at which opinion enters this system. Even lineal championships are not perfect but they are certainly better than the "fighter X is the best because..." system, which in the end will leave us with as many "champs" as there are boxers, which would be even worse than the multi-belt scenario we have now.