Crowning And Recognizing A Lineal Champion – Part IV

[Testdead]

The belt that was at stake in Adamek-Cunningham (or even in Cunningham-Wlodarczyk I and II for that matter) has nothing to do with it. THIS is where I tend to agree with The Ring, that people focus too much on title holders and automatically factoring them into the equation.

How exactly do any of the others have as much of a claim?

Enzo's best win to date came against Braithwaite.

On Fragomini... talk to me after his fight w/ Wlodarczyk. At which point, even if he wins, he still won't rate higher than Cunningham. Beyond that, his resume is atrocious.

Jean-Marc Mormeck, let me think... oh that's right, I saw him on the back of a milk carton the other day.

Huck is most certainly a Top 3-5 cruiserweight, and the only one of the lot who could've contested Adamek having a higher seed going into last December's fight.

But that said, if Huck were to fight and beat Adamek, do you then wait for Cunningham-Huck II to crown a king? If Adamek were to win, is that enough, or is a Cunningham rematch in order.

That's about as deep as I can go in putting the cruiserweight title on ice. Sorry, but I couldn't give a flying **** about the other names in regards to re-establishing cruiserweight lineage.

The odd thing about your argument is that Adamek's reign seems to be one of the few that's close to being universally accepted.

Youre thinking is flawed but its ok you must be a noob.

Cunningham in no-way was a champion purely a title holder and Adamek lost to the dreadfully over-rated dawson who is a LHW.

Listen to be a linear champ you got to beat the linear champ or if he vacates pick up his belts.

You dont become linear champion by having 1 good fight for a belt the real champ gave up.

Linear champions are guys that beat the former linear champ or clean the division out.

Not someone who has one good fight against a weak title holder!

[JakeNDaBox]

Youre thinking is flawed but its ok you must be a noob.

Cunningham in no-way was a champion purely a title holder and Adamek lost to the dreadfully over-rated dawson who is a LHW.

Listen to be a linear champ you got to beat the linear champ or if he vacates pick up his belts.

You dont become linear champion by having 1 good fight for a belt the real champ gave up.

Linear champions are guys that beat the former linear champ or clean the division out.

Not someone who has one good fight against a weak title holder!

Yes I'm a noob. Thanks for the clarification, we can now close the thread.

The problem with your theory is that it too closely follows the trend that came about in the 1980's and 1990's. The best example I can think of is the Tyson-Spinks debate (prior to their fight).

Tyson was the one with all of the hardware and was the far more popular fighter. Therefore, he was the popular choice for undisputed heavyweight champion.

However, purists still regarded Michael Spinks as the champ, based on his beating Larry Holmes, who beat Ali... and so and and so forth, drawing that line all the way back to Floyd Patterson.

Collecting all of the belts doesn't always make you the definitive champion. Of course, Tyson knocking out Spinks in 91 seconds ended that argument, but the fact is that he still had to win that fight in order to gain world wide recognition as THE heavyweight champion.

Therein lies the difference.

Among any respectable rankings, you'll find far more people who had Cunningham and Adamek as number 1 and 2 going into their fight (at worst, 1 and 3) than those who had any other fighters in that slot. That's why their fight gained acceptance as a vacant lineal title fight, for those who still track lineage.

Jean-Marc Mormeck has nothing to do with the equation, especially since he hasn't won a fight in nearly two years and hasn't stepped in a ring since losing to Haye 15 months ago.

Enzo Maccarinelli has nothing to do with the equation. Neither does that Italian cruiserweight earlier mentioned.

Marco Huck has somewhat of a say, and I wouldn't dispute any claim that said he deserved a higher ranking than Adamek PRIOR TO the Cunningham fight. But anything short of that, and your argument doesn't hold much water. Although, I'm just a noob, so WTF do I know?