-
-
I have to get back at you on that one. It could be that Roy was number 1 and Tarver was number 2....and when they matched, Tarver won and got the RING belt. It's very simple. You can gang up on me all you want, Joe still has the RING belt.
The comment made by Hitman saying that a lineal champ should have a corrupt belt is ridiculous.Comment
-
as far as if concerned the linear championship at lhw is vacantComment
-
Thats cos Roy had the Ring Belt which was handed to him. He never beat Dariusz M for the true linear title.
Virgil Hill and Henry Maske were the top two in the division, they fought and unified the division with Hill winning. Thus re-establishing the lineage.
Dariusz then beat Hill. Gonzalez beat Dariusz and Erdei beat Gonzalez.
The Ring ****ed up in this situation with regards to lineage.
Get it yet?Comment
-
no one is the linear LHW champ. Roy Jones vacated his linear title when he went up to Heavyweight, and as of yet no one has done enough to declare themself the absolute best at LHW
the fact that Zsolt Erdie could be considered a linear champ makes me shudder. hes been the linear champ for 4 or so years, yet all he fights are bums?
there is some logic behind calling him the linear champ, but as far as Im concerned, hes been stripped of that title.
Ring belt does not automatically = the linear belt.Comment
-
Jones won the Ring belt because he had the big 3 (WBA/IBF/WBC). When the Ring re-did their championship policy, that was one of the ways which someone could become champ. It was by dethroning a champ, or fill a vacancy (#1 vs. #2 or even #1 vs. #3 at times), and having those 3 belts.
They changed the rules and removed having the big 3 belts.
Nigel Collins spoke on it and gave that as reason to why Roy Jones had the LHW title, and said if the policy was in effect in the mid 1990s, that DM probably would've been their champ.Comment
-
It's Calzaghe.Comment
Tweet
Comment