Tweet
Pacquiao will make history there is no doubt about it he is gonna knock Hatton out!
-
-
I'll buy an argument for debate sake at 130, but the claim at 26 is not in dispute. You make some points about who had belts, but once a lineage is established belts are irrelevant. Lineage is, in its purest sense, about who beat who in a straight line and you may be misunderstanding the concept. The line was crystal to Pac. An argument about JMM being better than Pac in 02-03 is irrelevant to who had the rightful historical claim. They're important tools in promotion but they are so awash in politics as to be silly often.It's good to see you back man. I was wondering myself where you had disappeared to.
Back to topic: Anyway, on the title claims to lineal ascendancy, how is it a clear cut lineal claim at 126 when he didn't win a fight with any of the champions? I realise that Barrera could be said to be the best fighter or the Ring champion or whatever, but when it comes down to it, they had a non-title fight. You could then say that Vilomar Fernandez should have rightfully been considered the Lineal champion after he beat Alexis Arguello in his only loss at 130, even though it was a non-title fight.
Marquez was the unified WBA/IBF champion since the start of 2003 and he wasn't beaten by Pac there. Morales won the title from Espadas Jr who won the vacant title, then Morales was beaten by Barrera (but was not given the title due to the dodgy circumstances of the 'win') who was then beaten by Pac. Nonetheless, that was mid 2002 and he didn't lose until the end of 2003 to Pac.
As there was no clear lineal ascendant, and another champ with two belts and just as solid a claim as Barrera to the supposed lineal title, at the time of his loss to Pac, it is actually rather unclear. There are a few guys who could lay claim to having the lineal title, or, there simply wasn't a lineal claimant at that time.
Other than a couple of little picky points, great article mate. Look forward to more.
As Jake laid out in his series a couple weeks ago, Pedroza was lineally recognized after Sanchez passed and when he defeated LaPorte in a WBA defense only for LaPorte to then win the WBC belt.
Hamed restrengthened the lineage when he beat Vasquez. Vasquez was stripped for facing Pac, after Pac had picked up the BO and BF belts. That was probably a product of the BA/BO feud of the 90s. After Vasquez, he also beat the reigning BC champ. So he had beaten at some time or another the reiging or most recently stripped titlist of all four bodies and one of them, Vasquez, was also the direct lineal champ from Pedroza. From there it's Hamed, Barrera, Pac.
Your analogy of Arguello-Fernandez is false. First, Arguello was not the lineal champ (Serrano was). Second, the fight was fought above 130 at Lightweight. It was Arguello's lone loss during his reign at 130, but it wasn't a loss at 130.
Conversely, Barrera-Hamed was called a 'people's championship' on HBO because they mostly don't note Ring Titles but it was announced in the ring as a title fight AND both men weighed in AS Featherweights. So one of the mobster bodies didn't get their cut. Whoopee. A bout between two Featherweights, scheduled for the championship distance, with one of the men being the lineal champ = history.
Maybe we'll see more on May 2.Comment
-
go win and make history pacman!!!!Comment
-
Hold on...the fight was framed by those who favored on the premise of "DLH has slipped enough for Pac to beat him." That he did, and in impressive fashion, shouldn't be disparaged but it can also be placed in perspective. Beating the top of his game JMM he did earlier in the year is far more impressive than beating a worn DLH in real, ring terms. He wasn't exactly facing the same Oscar Ike or Shane or Tito once did.Comment
-
BUMPing this great article.Comment
Comment