Mayweather was never a WBC WW linear champion. Neither was Baldomir.

[Fox McCloud]

To be totally honest, someone who has beaten the guy, who beat the guy, who beat the guy, who beat the guy, who beat the guy, who beat the guy is less of a credible champion in my mind than a guy who unifies a bunch of vacant belts and beats a lot of credible fighters on the way.

IE Juan Diaz > Joel Casamayor before the Nate Campbell disaster for Diaz.

[Ray*]

When you have cleaned a division, and claim all the titles, you are the undisputed champion.

Linear, as in line, is about defeating the guy who was the champion. If the line has been broken, then you can't milk that idea anymore.

There hasn't been a WBC linear champion since Leonard retired, unless you want to make up for the fact that the line was broken by arbitrary methods, because you desperately want to sell the "linear champion" idea. Whether it's a box off between #1 or #2, or someone claiming all the titles.

I think Linear isnt the right word to use but it does sound go to the ear and looks good on paper, so people just tend to ignore the real meaning of the word "linear".

[BMWM3P]

No, it's because you are an ignorant nuthugging idiot who knows absolutly nothing about the sport.

Another Floyd's ****rider shows up . You're just a snot nose kid who knows **** about boxing. Grow up, find your balls and watch some pre 2000 boxing so you can educate yourself.

[Ras44]

The linear championship needs to have some sort of criteria for reestablishment in the case of a retired fighter or a fighter moving up.

I mean, really, this logic means Lennox Lewis was not the linear champion after killing the who's who of the division for a decade. He beat Holyfield, Tyson, Mercer, Bowe (mentally, considering Bowe absolutely refused to face him), and many more.

Additionally, Roy Jones Jr. moved up to 168, vacating the IBF belt, so what you are saying is that Jermain Taylor was NOT the linear champion, even though he beat Bernard Hopkins, who was the owner of the 5 major belts (Ring, IBF, WBA, WBC and WBO), and even beat the WBA regular champion in his 20 defenses.

In the literal sense of the word, a linear championship goes to hell when retirement or division jumping happens, but if we want the phrase "linear championship" to have an applicability or relevance to the sport, we need to come up with some way of using and reestablishing it in the case of either of the formerly mentioned events.

Check the bold part. That is exactly what I'm saying. The press/promoters/sanctioning bodies use arbitrary methods to "reestablish" the linear championship idea, but really, the line was broken. Really, the linear championship, like you said, "goes to hell".

I read the rest of your post, and see the problem. Jermain and Lennox were great because of their achievements, not because they were "linear champions".

This "linear champion" BS, not only is it a fallacy on it's own, but it's also used as an authority fallacy. Lennox, Tito, MAYWEATHER, Jermain, were/are great boxers not because of some "linear champion" BS, but because of their respective talents.

[BMWM3P]

I think Linear isnt the right word to use but it does sound go to the ear and looks good on paper, so people just tend to ignore the real meaning of the word "linear".

It's just a hype word, that really has no meaning on the status of the beltholder. When you have a guy like Baldo as the linear champion, I think it just ****s all over the concept.

[warp1432]

To be totally honest, someone who has beaten the guy, who beat the guy, who beat the guy, who beat the guy, who beat the guy, who beat the guy is less of a credible champion in my mind than a guy who unifies a bunch of vacant belts and beats a lot of credible fighters on the way.

IE Juan Diaz > Joel Casamayor before the Nate Campbell disaster for Diaz.

Then let's say Roy Jones collects the WBA, IBF, WBO belt when Lennox Lewis is still the champ. Lennox beats Vitali and he doesn't retire. Meanwhile, Jones beats Ruiz, Wlad, and Danny Williams to get his belts.

Who is the champion? The guy who collected the belts and beat the good contenders, or the inactive champion who beat the #1 contender.

Diaz might have been the #1 contender, but he had no right of calling himself the champion of the division.

[Fox McCloud]

Check the bold part. That is exactly what I'm saying. The press/promoters/sanctioning bodies use arbitrary methods to "reestablish" the linear championship idea, but really, the line was broken. Really, the linear championship, like you said, "goes to hell".

I read the rest of your post, and see the problem. Jermain and Lennox were great because of their achievements, not because they were "linear champions".

This "linear champion" BS, not only is it a fallacy on it's own, but it's also used as an authority fallacy. Lennox, Tito, MAYWEATHER, Jermain, were/are great boxers not because of some "linear champion" BS, but because of their respective talents.

I do think there can be such a thing of eras of linealship...

IE, Marciano retired as the unified champion right (or lineal, I am not going to check the history to see)? After that, a new era is born, and someone who either unifies the belts or wins the #1 vs. #2 fight (whichever criteria is best suited) becomes the lineal champion for that era.

I do think the lineal championship has some value to the sport... Michael Spinks would not be considered as great of an achievement for Mike Tyson had he not been branded the lineal champion from beating Larry Holmes.

Shannon Briggs would have likely not gotten a rightful fight (well, as rightful as it can be with ****ty judging) with Lennox Lewis after beating the "lineal" champion in Big George Foreman.

Does that make sense? Obviously what we discuss doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things, but playing the devil's advocate, that seems to be a good way in order to reestablish the use of an intrinsicially valuable label for the sport.

[Fox McCloud]

Then let's say Roy Jones collects the WBA, IBF, WBO belt when Lennox Lewis is still the champ. Lennox beats Vitali and he doesn't retire. Meanwhile, Jones beats Ruiz, Wlad, and Danny Williams to get his belts.

Who is the champion? The guy who collected the belts and beat the good contenders, or the inactive champion who beat the #1 contender.

Diaz might have been the #1 contender, but he had no right of calling himself the champion of the division.

I think Diaz, at that point, has done enough good work in order to at least cause some dispute to Casamayor's "undisputed" championship. I agree that Diaz can't be called the true champion, but after that much good work being done by Juan Diaz, I don't think Casamayor can truthfully call himself the champion of the division either.

[Ras44]

I do think there can be such a thing of eras of linealship...

IE, Marciano retired as the unified champion right (or lineal, I am not going to check the history to see)? After that, a new era is born, and someone who either unifies the belts or wins the #1 vs. #2 fight (whichever criteria is best suited) becomes the lineal champion for that era.

I do think the lineal championship has some value to the sport... Michael Spinks would not be considered as great of an achievement for Mike Tyson had he not been branded the lineal champion from beating Larry Holmes.

Shannon Briggs would have likely not gotten a rightful fight (well, as rightful as it can be with ****ty judging) with Lennox Lewis after beating the "lineal" champion in Big George Foreman.

Does that make sense? Obviously what we discuss doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things, but playing the devil's advocate, that seems to be a good way in order to reestablish the use of an intrinsicially valuable label for the sport.

I think we would be better off without fallacies, whether they make things easier or not. I really think it would be better for us, the press, and historians, to be accurate and rate people for their merits and not for "badges of authority".

[warp1432]

I don't think Casamayor can truthfully call himself the champion of the division either.

Why he beat the champ, Diego Corrales, and when Corrales had the weight advantage too.

I still like your idea of having if the number 1 guy doing significant work in the division then the champ has to fight him. Like Mayweather-Cotto.