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

[Ras44]

I meant the premise of this thread.

What if a German won the linear championship?

Not much. I think I spent about 10 minutes writing the post. Didn't do a good job with the history, as WMUTE did.

lol @ the German comment

Germans are great. Mercedes and Glaschutte (spelling) watches. They received Thompson in a classy way. And their adopted Armenian KTFO Miranda and STFU'ed me.

[PRboxingfan]

I don't know how you can say first, that it's pretty simple, and that it's not arbitrary, in the least, when you have said that the line starts again when someone defeats a person CONSIDERED the champ. Considered, as in individual judgment or preference, i.e. arbitrary, and second, that the guy who in your arbitrary judgment of the situation becomes THE champ, isn't a linear champion himself, but somehow, the guy who defeats him, does. You propose another arbitrary way to make up lineages in order to keep using the term linear (or lineal) champion, where, really, the line either has been broken, or has no legitimacy at all from the start.

It is pretty simple. Think back to the beginning of boxing. Let's say that the first person to win the title (when there was only one) in the Paperweight division was Johnny Popcorn. Johnny is the first champ, so there is no line and, therefore, cannot be considered lineal. Johnny goes on to successfully defend his belt 100 times, but he's still not a lineal champ. However, if Bobby Peanut comes along and beats him, Bobby is now the lineal champion. You see, you can't have a line with only one person in it; you need two to form a line and the first person to beat a champion is the first lineal champ. The person before him was just a champ. It's the simplest form of logic I can think of.

Now, say Bobby Peanut decides to retire and, simultaneously, three more belt organizations are formed (the ABC, DEF, and GHI), to go with the XYZ division that was the original. Now we have four belt holders and the only way to decide who the real champion is if one person wins all four, or wins at least three and the fourth belt holder doesn't want to fight him and all sports writers consider him the champion. Let's say that Davey Cherry wins all four belts. He is now THE champ in the Paperweight division, even if he's not a lineal champ (remember, there is no line since he's the first REAL champ since the line was broken). If Billy Apple comes along and beats Davey Cherry, he then becomes the SECOND lineal champ because the first one, Bobby Peanut, had retired.

Do you know how to count? In the 10-base system, you start with 0 (even if normally people don't) and count 10 units (0-9), the eleventh unit is the second unit infront of the first unit (1 is the second unit, 0 is the first unit), making a 10. The point is that you have to basically start over every 10 units in the 10-base system, or every 2 units in binary (2-base system). The same applies to lineal champs. You start over every time you reach the end of the line with a new line. That new line starts with THE champ in every division, once that champ is established.

[Allucard]

And that is because the "linear champion" argument is logically flawed. Since Milton McCrory won the vacant WBC WW title after Leonard retired, there has never been a linear champion. And that is because even if you defeated the guy who was the champion, eventually you get to a point where the "line" has been broken. To top it off, the "line" was also broken by Trinidad vacating the title and now, by Mayweather "retiring".

Of course, logic-challenged journalists like Dan Rafael may say otherwise, because it sounds good on paper. "THE LINEAR CHAMPION". They have a new idea to write about. Makes their job easier. They can sell us a new idea. But to declare a linear champion after the line has been broken -three times to makes it worse- would be arbitrary BS, because logically, the WBC "linear champion" argument ended the day Leonard retired.

Example:

Guy 1: "Oh, Baldo was the linear champion"

Guy 2: "Really? Who did he defeat?"

Guy 1: "LAWL he defeated Judah you moron!"

Guy 2: "And who did Judah defeat to become champion"

Guy 1: "Plain and Basic Common Sense: Spinks, who defeated Mayorga, you biased 'rican"

Guy 2: "Yes, yes, I remember, Mayorga owned poor Vernon, who in turn owned poor Sugar Shane... you remember that Shane won a vacant belt right?"

Guy 1: "What the f@ck does it matter?"

Guy 2: "Well, I want to ask you, when does the linear championship magically re-appears, when Vernon really defeated a guy who was not the linear champion. I guess it then you are creating something -the linear championship- from nothing -a guy who was not the linear champion-. It's arbitrary."

Guy 1: "F@ck you. I believe in Dan Rafael."

Discuss.

You have a point but it's still way better than what happens today with the regular belts. Look at the heavyweight champion, Wladimir Klitschko. He gets to defend his tittle against a mandatory who's stepping up in class at 36 years of age, for the first time! Where do they find these guys? Simple, they carefully select 2 crappy guys and give them the chance to fight for the tittle in a "tittle eliminator bout" which is really more a WWE freak show failing to resemble any sport.
More examples can be given like Joe Calzaghe and Mikkel Kessler who are among the best "mandatory killers" out there. I mean, it's ok to defend your tittle. But when your competition value is crap you should either move weight classes or have someone else doing that. To be fair, i'm glad to see Joe Calzaghe finally risking it a bit stepping up in weight, but still very carefully planned and against older fighters.

And people have the nerve to bash on fighters like Mayweather or Pacquiao who have moved up in weight chasing new challenges in their youth, bashing them to the ground the minute in every opportunity.

[PrettyBoyFloyd7]

And that is because the "linear champion" argument is logically flawed. Since Milton McCrory won the vacant WBC WW title after Leonard retired, there has never been a linear champion. And that is because even if you defeated the guy who was the champion, eventually you get to a point where the "line" has been broken. To top it off, the "line" was also broken by Trinidad vacating the title and now, by Mayweather "retiring".

Of course, logic-challenged journalists like Dan Rafael may say otherwise, because it sounds good on paper. "THE LINEAR CHAMPION". They have a new idea to write about. Makes their job easier. They can sell us a new idea. But to declare a linear champion after the line has been broken -three times to makes it worse- would be arbitrary BS, because logically, the WBC "linear champion" argument ended the day Leonard retired.

Example:

Guy 1: "Oh, Baldo was the linear champion"

Guy 2: "Really? Who did he defeat?"

Guy 1: "LAWL he defeated Judah you moron!"

Guy 2: "And who did Judah defeat to become champion"

Guy 1: "Plain and Basic Common Sense: Spinks, who defeated Mayorga, you biased 'rican"

Guy 2: "Yes, yes, I remember, Mayorga owned poor Vernon, who in turn owned poor Sugar Shane... you remember that Shane won a vacant belt right?"

Guy 1: "What the f@ck does it matter?"

Guy 2: "Well, I want to ask you, when does the linear championship magically re-appears, when Vernon really defeated a guy who was not the linear champion. I guess it then you are creating something -the linear championship- from nothing -a guy who was not the linear champion-. It's arbitrary."

Guy 1: "F@ck you. I believe in Dan Rafael."

Discuss.

shane mosley had the wbc belt -> Vernon Forrest beat Shane for it -> Ricardo Mayorga had the WBA belt and unified the belts by beating Vernon -> Spinks had the IBF belt and unified the IBF,WBA, and WBC belts by beating Mayorga->Judah KO'd spinks to become the UNDISPUTED LINEAR WW CHAMP->Baldy beats Judah its that simple..

THE DEFINITION OF A LINEAR CHAMP IS THE MAIN CHAMP AT THAT WEIGHT CLASS...BALDY WAS THE LINEAR CHAMP CUZ HE WAS THE ONE WHO BEAT "THE MAN" AT WELTERWEIGHT.

[Ras44]

It is pretty simple. Think back to the beginning of boxing. Let's say that the first person to win the title (when there was only one) in the Paperweight division was Johnny Popcorn. Johnny is the first champ, so there is no line and, therefore, cannot be considered lineal. Johnny goes on to successfully defend his belt 100 times, but he's still not a lineal champ. However, if Bobby Peanut comes along and beats him, Bobby is now the lineal champion. You see, you can't have a line with only one person in it; you need two to form a line and the first person to beat a champion is the first lineal champ. The person before him was just a champ. It's the simplest form of logic I can think of.

Now, say Bobby Peanut decides to retire and, simultaneously, three more belt organizations are formed (the ABC, DEF, and GHI), to go with the XYZ division that was the original. Now we have four belt holders and the only way to decide who the real champion is if one person wins all four, or wins at least three and the fourth belt holder doesn't want to fight him and all sports writers consider him the champion. Let's say that Davey Cherry wins all four belts. He is now THE champ in the Paperweight division, even if he's not a lineal champ (remember, there is no line since he's the first REAL champ since the line was broken). If Billy Apple comes along and beats Davey Cherry, he then becomes the SECOND lineal champ because the first one, Bobby Peanut, had retired.

Do you know how to count? In the 10-base system, you start with 0 (even if normally people don't) and count 10 units (0-9), the eleventh unit is the second unit infront of the first unit (1 is the second unit, 0 is the first unit), making a 10. The point is that you have to basically start over every 10 units in the 10-base system, or every 2 units in binary (2-base system). The same applies to lineal champs. You start over every time you reach the end of the line with a new line. That new line starts with THE champ in every division, once that champ is established.

Wow, a well constructed answer!

However, this is what you are doing (specially in the last paragraph). You are using geometrical/mathematical truths not as way of COMPARING (or exemplifying), but as a way of EQUATING, and that is a fallacy. To equate the geometrical definition of a line and a point, which are tautological truths of the highest level, to an example in which what must be compared (or in your case, equated), to the point, is the word champion, constitutes a falsehood by itself (like saying that because we are talking about Ali and how he talks about moving like a butterfly and stinging like a bee, you the come to me and say "Do you know about bees? Well if a bee stings you, she dies, therefore, if Ali hits you, he will die"), and because the word champion, as applied by the examples provided by you and illustrated by the arguing of the guy with the Italian flag in the avatar is an arbitrary construction. Hence, you have to finish you argument with "once that champ has been established. By who? Who died to make you king? Oh, again, the arbitrary process, the end of legitimacy, or, as you make it, a line in which the first point is an illegitimate, arbitrary one, but the second one, is a legitimate, non-arbitrary one, by virtue of equating tautologies with non-tautologies.

More elegantly seen in this quote:

Pythagoras's theorem is a statement about objects that have no width, mass, or time duration. It is not a statement about depressions in sand, sticks, or strings. [...] The fact that in a right triangle, the sum of the squares of the legs equals the square of the hypotenuse was true long before Pythagoras or even planet Earth was around; that it was discovered by some humans (long before Pythagoras, actually) has no bearing on its validity.

[C'MONMANG']

So literally, your argument is that there is no such thing a linear champion in this day and age?

The fact that Spinks unified the WBA, WBC, and IBF championship is not good enough to establish himself as the ONLY champion in the division?

Sweet analysis.

How was Spinks the only champion when Margarito had the WBO and had it by beating a guy Spinks lost to?

[C'MONMANG']

shane mosley had the wbc belt -> Vernon Forrest beat Shane for it -> Ricardo Mayorga had the WBA belt and unified the belts by beating Vernon -> Spinks had the IBF belt and unified the IBF,WBA, and WBC belts by beating Mayorga->Judah KO'd spinks to become the UNDISPUTED LINEAR WW CHAMP->Baldy beats Judah its that simple..

THE DEFINITION OF A LINEAR CHAMP IS THE MAIN CHAMP AT THAT WEIGHT CLASS...BALDY WAS THE LINEAR CHAMP CUZ HE WAS THE ONE WHO BEAT "THE MAN" AT WELTERWEIGHT.

thats not the definition...

[C'MONMANG']

No because Shane Mosley and Vernon Forrest (Or Oscar De La Hoya. You could say Shane and Oscar were the #1 and #2 when they fought each other) was rated #1 and #2 at Welterweight and when the top 2 people face each other they fill the linear vacany. When a old line is "broken", you go draw a new one with the #1 facing the #2.

Or if you want to go with the "You have to unify the main 3 to become champ" then it was filled with Mayorga and Spinks and Spinks becoming the linear champ.

WelL sPINKS fought Judah not Margarito who ranked #1 under him..

Judah had done nothing at WW TO GET a shot, let alone two .

[TommyGunn.]

That makes him an undisputed champion, not a linear champion.

And it's not a matter of "this age and day", it's a matter of being truthful. If you are talking about "linear", and the line was broken, then there is no other linear champion.

If you could find a weight class where no champion has ever vacated the title for any reason, then the linear championship is still alive there.

EDIT - Not even undisputed, since he didn't have the WBO belt.

No it doesn't it makes Mosley an undisputed champion. The guys after him are in the line from where he unified (became undisputed) so they are linear because they are following the line.

Mosley - undisputed
Forrest - linear
Mayorga - linear
Stinx - linear
Zab - linear
Baldomir - linear
Mayweather - linear

Baldomir follows the line that Mosley started by unifying the division (becoming undisputed champ)

With Mayweather retiring there will be a new line started.

[C'MONMANG']

No it doesn't it makes Mosley an undisputed champion. The guys after him are in the line from where he unified (became undisputed) so they are linear because they are following the line.

Mosley - undisputed
Forrest - linear
Mayorga - linear
Stinx - linear
Zab - linear
Baldomir - linear
Mayweather - linear

Baldomir follows the line that Mosley started by unifying the division (becoming undisputed champ)

With Mayweather retiring there will be a new line started.

lol........