-
-
You know what I dislike about this whole "*** has a million titles in a million divisions!"? Most of it is ridiculous, some of it very amazing.
A ridiculous one you ask? Take Leonard's 'five' titles for instance. How did he actually win his fifth title? He had won at WW, LMW, MW, SMW, but, what was the fifth division he fought in? He never fought above SMW and how can a LHW opponent lose his LHW title when he is not allowed to fight as a LHW? It is the most moronically idiotic thing I have ever seen with regards to this title business.
The only reason Leonard won that damn fight in the first place was because they made LaLonde shrink down to a weight well below his healthy limit and then somehow Leonard gets a LHW title for it?
He is the only fighter to win a title without ever fighting in the division he supposedly won it in.
Comment
-
lol you may be right, always realized that was bogus, but it s more funny when put that wayYou know what I dislike about this whole "*** has a million titles in a million divisions!"? Most of it is ridiculous, some of it very amazing.
A ridiculous one you ask? Take Leonard's 'five' titles for instance. How did he actually win his fifth title? He had won at WW, LMW, MW, SMW, but, what was the fifth division he fought in? He never fought above SMW and how can a LHW opponent lose his LHW title when he is not allowed to fight as a LHW? It is the most moronically idiotic thing I have ever seen with regards to this title business.
The only reason Leonard won that damn fight in the first place was because they made LaLonde shrink down to a weight well below his healthy limit and then somehow Leonard gets a LHW title for it?
He is the only fighter to win a title without ever fighting in the division he supposedly won it in.Comment
-
Well, boxing hasnt really interested me much lately, i dont want to discuss floyds resume, nor do i wish to attempt to try to explain the difference between plaster and steroids and the huge steep difference between the two.
You know what i wanna know.
What do you put more stock in...
JMM moving up to 135 and cleaning out a division full of legit, LEGIT contenders, or Pac fighting david diaz, de la hoya and now ricky hatton, only one of which is actually a semi-prime fighter who holds a legit title. Im not ripping pac, but JMM shocked me the other day. I dont blame pac for the DLH fight, but i honestly dont care to see these division jumping fights that dont matter. Honestly, this is all ray leonards fault, Mr "I rarely fight, but when i do, it matters so pay money to see me come back over and over"
which is why im glad terry norris finally derailed that garbage. Im also tired of discussing boxing with people only follow one ****ing fighter.Comment
-
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.
Last edited by BennyST; 03-13-2009, 06:04 AM.Comment
-
The article say its from Pedroza. if you dont like that all 4 belt holders in early 00 were beaten by Hamed who lost to Barrera.I
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.
Im not debating with you im just stating facts. a little scared of being 'softlocked' again LOL
but if you oWNED me in one of your posts. can i simply come back with "Sorry not interested in debating with you" ?Last edited by miron_lang; 03-13-2009, 04:59 AM.Comment
-
No, it was a vacant title fight between Pedroza and Espadas Jr. Whether or not all four title holders were beaten by Barrera in 2000, is no consequence to who was holding the titles at the time that Pac beat Barrera. I'm not saying he wasn't the best fighter or anything like that, just that it is not a clear cut lineal title by any means at all. Anyway, the fact is that Morales won it off a guy that won the vacant title. Marquez, and no this is not some Pac vs Marquez thing (I care not about that debate), held two of the main titles and beat very good champions to get them in title fights, so I don't understand how Pac's is any more legit or lineal than his. As far as I'm concerned there was no lineal champion to be fought.
As for the other stuff, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Who 'owned' who and why? What does being 'soft-locked', whatever that means, have to do with this?
Comment
-
i get your point.No, it was a vacant title fight between Pedroza and Espadas Jr. Whether or not all four title holders were beaten by Barrera in 2000, is no consequence to who was holding the titles at the time that Pac beat Barrera. I'm not saying he wasn't the best fighter or anything like that, just that it is not a clear cut lineal title by any means at all. Anyway, the fact is that Morales won it off a guy that won the vacant title. Marquez, and no this is not some Pac vs Marquez thing (I care not about that debate), held two of the main titles and beat very good champions to get them in title fights, so I don't understand how Pac's is any more legit or lineal than his. As far as I'm concerned there was no lineal champion to be fought.
As for the other stuff, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Who 'owned' who and why? What does being 'soft-locked', whatever that means, have to do with this?
following the death of chava. Pedroza was considered the champion. if you follow the championship from that point you'll end up with pac.
Sorry about the other thing. softlocked is an IT term. It generally mean that the administrator wants to stop an activity from happening. to stop something from happening.Comment
-
if pac beat casa and diaz it wouldn't even be special. however if marquez moved up three weights to have a close win over delahoya he would be the greatest mexican since chavez. double standards blatantly. pac was the big underdog and fought the best fight i have ever seen him fight. he boxed and used his aggression smartly, give ***in credit you fool.Comment
Tweet
Comment