-
-
Aren't you guys supposed to be Floyd fans? How come you didn't know this beforehand?Comment
-
Even the claim to three for Pac is pretty dodgy. It's very ..... uhhhh .... iffy to say the least. Vacant titles won here and there by good fighters and all sorts of titles running about all over the place. The fact is that the only reason Pac is considered a three division 'lineal' champ is through complete conjecture, and absolutely not fact.
The Jr LW title was won from a vacant title down the line but because Marquez was considered the best there, Pac supposedly 'won' the lineal title. That's also how it is with his FW 'lineal' title. It's all a bit suss really as are some of Mayweather's.
It's very, very hard now to really figure out a lineal claim unless there has been a very dominant champ in recent history simply because of the amount of absurd titles. I'm not sure a lineal title should even be a factor in anything anymore. It's not as if being a lineal title is the same as it was twenty years ago. ****e, you can win a lineal title from a vacant belt now!
The fact is that the only reason he has that third one is because the all knowing and all great, omnipotent 'Ring' magazine decided that the fight between Pac and Marquez for the JLW title should be for the grandiose 'lineal' title, even though it was won in a vacant title fight recently by Morales, therefore going against every definition that lineal stands for, and not really being lineal in the slightest, apart from the grand ol' Ring (the greatest savior of boxing's lineal titles and belts) saying that it should be so. Who are we to disagree after all?
Last edited by BennyST; 04-21-2009, 09:07 AM.Comment
-
Even the claim to three for Pac is pretty dodgy. It's very ..... uhhhh .... iffy to say the least. Vacant titles won here and there by good fighters and all sorts of titles running about all over the place. The fact is that the only reason Pac is considered a three division 'lineal' champ is through complete conjecture, and absolutely not fact.
The Jr LW title was won from a vacant title down the line but because Marquez was considered the best there, Pac supposedly 'won' the lineal title. That's also how it is with his FW 'lineal' title. It's all a bit suss really as are some of Mayweather's.
It's very, very hard now to really figure out a lineal claim unless there has been a very dominant champ in recent history simply because of the amount of absurd titles. I'm not sure a lineal title should even be a factor in anything anymore. It's not as if being a lineal title is the same as it was twenty years ago. ****e, you can win a lineal title from a vacant belt now!
The fact is that the only reason he has that third one is because the all knowing and all great, omnipotent 'Ring' magazine decided that the fight between Pac and Marquez for the JLW title should be for the grandiose 'lineal' title, even though it was won in a vacant title fight recently by Morales, therefore going against every definition that lineal stands for, and not really being lineal in the slightest, apart from the grand ol' Ring (the greatest savior of boxing's lineal titles and belts) saying that it should be so. Who are we to disagree after all?
i suggest you state that to cliff rold,one of the writers here on nsb.good read though!Comment
-
Even the claim to three for Pac is pretty dodgy. It's very ..... uhhhh .... iffy to say the least. Vacant titles won here and there by good fighters and all sorts of titles running about all over the place. The fact is that the only reason Pac is considered a three division 'lineal' champ is through complete conjecture, and absolutely not fact.
The Jr LW title was won from a vacant title down the line but because Marquez was considered the best there, Pac supposedly 'won' the lineal title. That's also how it is with his FW 'lineal' title. It's all a bit suss really as are some of Mayweather's.
It's very, very hard now to really figure out a lineal claim unless there has been a very dominant champ in recent history simply because of the amount of absurd titles. I'm not sure a lineal title should even be a factor in anything anymore. It's not as if being a lineal title is the same as it was twenty years ago. ****e, you can win a lineal title from a vacant belt now!
The fact is that the only reason he has that third one is because the all knowing and all great, omnipotent 'Ring' magazine decided that the fight between Pac and Marquez for the JLW title should be for the grandiose 'lineal' title, even though it was won in a vacant title fight recently by Morales, therefore going against every definition that lineal stands for, and not really being lineal in the slightest, apart from the grand ol' Ring (the greatest savior of boxing's lineal titles and belts) saying that it should be so. Who are we to disagree after all?
Tottally agree. Pac's first lineal title is pretty strange.Comment
-
Benny, do you not consider Pac to have been lineal champ at FW?
I think Barrera has to be considered the true champion going into the first Pac fight
IMO, this is dating back to his win over Hamed. Naz was considered the number 1, and had beaten all 4 belt holders at some point over the previous 2-3 years. If not, then surely Barrera-Morales 2 qualifies as a fight between the recognised top 2 in the division, and therefore enough to crown a new lineal champ?
That's the way I've always seen it at least.Comment
-
Mayweather beat Gatti at 140. Gatti wasn't the lineal champ. He'd beaten some guy named Gianluca Branco for the vacant WBC belt. So....Floyd couldn't have been the true 140 lb champ at the time........Ricky Hatton was.
Remember, Hatton had beaten Tszyu who had unified the division when he made Zab Judah do the Chicken Dance in Round 2 a few years prior.
Sorry.Comment
-
Well, Damn.
Late again.
Comment
Tweet
Comment