What conditions are required for a title to be considered lineal?

[BigmoneyMikes]

If the lineal champion leaves the division, then the consensus number 1 and number 2 of the division should fight to create a new lineage.

[Squizz]

1. must be carlos baldomir

2. ..............................

3. $$$ profit! $$$

Listen you dumb ****. We know you hate Mayweather, and that's fine.

But the fact is: IS that Carlos Baldomir WAS the lineal champion! Why? Because he beat Judah, who beat Spinks, who unified when he beat Mayorga.

But then again, you probably weren't even watching boxing back then, so there's no point in arguing with you. (Not that there ever is, seeing as ur a useless troll.)

[Squizz]

And for me, what defines a lineal champion, is anyone who unifies titles in their weight division amongst the three major governing bodies, those being the IBF, WBC, and WBA. Therefore, making them "undisputed".

Of recent though, I think you can also factor in the WBO, which TBH, is probably the least corrupt governing body to speak of.

Pretty simple as far as I can see.

For instance:

Joe Calzaghe was lineal champion at LHW. Why? Because he beat Bernard Hopkins, who beat Antonio Tarver, who beat Glenn Johnson, who beat Tarver himself, who beat Roy Jones. The man who unified the division (and then some) therefore making him undisputed.

It's actually a pretty simple concept.

For all intents and purposes, Mike Tyson was lineal champ once he beat Michael Spinks. And you could even make a case for him being lineal prior to that.

But then again, the ******* Nation around here, most likely has zero idea as to what I'm talking about.

[daggum]

Listen you dumb ****. We know you hate Mayweather, and that's fine.

But the fact is: IS that Carlos Baldomir WAS the lineal champion! Why? Because he beat Judah, who beat Spinks, who unified when he beat Mayorga.

But then again, you probably weren't even watching boxing back then, so there's no point in arguing with you. (Not that there ever is, seeing as ur a useless troll.)

yeah and judah/baldomir were utter failures at welterweight. they both only have 1 win over a top 10 opponent and tons of losses. thankfully there weren't any other good welterweights around for floyd to fight........

[daggum]

And for me, what defines a lineal champion, is anyone who unifies titles in their weight division amongst the three major governing bodies, those being the IBF, WBC, and WBA. Therefore, making them "undisputed".

Of recent though, I think you can also factor in the WBO, which TBH, is probably the least corrupt governing body to speak of.

Pretty simple as far as I can see.

For instance:

Joe Calzaghe was lineal champion at LHW. Why? Because he beat Bernard Hopkins, who beat Antonio Tarver, who beat Glenn Johnson, who beat Tarver himself, who beat Roy Jones. The man who unified the division (and then some) therefore making him undisputed.



It's actually a pretty simple concept.

For all intents and purposes, Mike Tyson was lineal champ once he beat Michael Spinks. And you could even make a case for him being lineal prior to that.

But then again, the ******* Nation around here, most likely has zero idea as to what I'm talking about.

maybe it's not that simple because zsolt erdei was the linear champ. he beat gonzalez who beat darius who beat hill.

this is kinda what i was proving about baldomir. being linear and being the best are not synonymous. you could just fluke a win and be linear but if you want to be the best you have to fight and beat top competition more than once.

if floyd fought at light heavy and beat zsolt erdei instead of hopkins, jones jr, and tarver would you be satisfied? would you say he proved he was the best? well he beat the linear champ! that's the same argument you use for floyd at welter. floyd beat baldomir so he doesn't have to fight cotto, margarito and pac. baldomir was the lineal champ and that's that. nothing left to prove.

[x3_bazooka_x3]

An alphabet title can never be a lineal title, it that is your question. Lineal title belongs to "the man" of the division. When it's vacant it is decided by the #1 and 2 or 1 and 3. I think there's a website which follows the lineage stuff. And no you don't have to win all the titles to get a lineal title. Alphabet titles are useless now. The Ring and Lineal Titles are the way to go. Holding either of the WBC, IBF, WBA or WBO is simply to "bring something to the table" and have something to negotiate with, though I know they meant a lot more back then when I was not around.

Okay So basicly what we are saying here, is that the WBC Jr Middleweight title that Oscar defended against Mayweather was not Lineal.

[x3_bazooka_x3]

An alphabet title can never be a lineal title, it that is your question. Lineal title belongs to "the man" of the division. When it's vacant it is decided by the #1 and 2 or 1 and 3. I think there's a website which follows the lineage stuff. And no you don't have to win all the titles to get a lineal title. Alphabet titles are useless now. The Ring and Lineal Titles are the way to go. Holding either of the WBC, IBF, WBA or WBO is simply to "bring something to the table" and have something to negotiate with, though I know they meant a lot more back then when I was not around.

And for me, what defines a lineal champion, is anyone who unifies titles in their weight division amongst the three major governing bodies, those being the IBF, WBC, and WBA. Therefore, making them "undisputed".

Of recent though, I think you can also factor in the WBO, which TBH, is probably the least corrupt governing body to speak of.

Pretty simple as far as I can see.

For instance:

Joe Calzaghe was lineal champion at LHW. Why? Because he beat Bernard Hopkins, who beat Antonio Tarver, who beat Glenn Johnson, who beat Tarver himself, who beat Roy Jones. The man who unified the division (and then some) therefore making him undisputed.

It's actually a pretty simple concept.

For all intents and purposes, Mike Tyson was lineal champ once he beat Michael Spinks. And you could even make a case for him being lineal prior to that.

But then again, the ******* Nation around here, most likely has zero idea as to what I'm talking about.

I always felt undisputed ment more to the sport then Lineal, now and days its a matter of that ring belt which lets face it that Ring belt can be given to anybody, and they never enforce mandotorys neither.

I mean lets look back at Mayweathers light weight title and follow that back, we know Floyd didnt unify, neither did Castillo who he beat for that title, but Castillo won a MD over Johnston for the title, in the rematch Jonhston was announced the winner by MD, over turned when he got to the dressing room to a draw.
However prior to Johnston having the title it was Mendey who held the title and he won it while it was vacant.
and if you follow that belt from mendey up nobody unified, So thats why I brought this thread up you can follow alot of these titles and trace them back and your going to find holes in arugments here.
Whats that we keep hearing on a regular, Floyd has won how many lineal titles? in what divisons?

Okay let me use another example so some people dont get their feelings hurt, when Mosley beat DLH for the WBC title in fight 1, that title was given to Oscar, Trinidad had just won it, beat Oscar for it, but moved up to Jr middle.

you see what I am saying

[x3_bazooka_x3]

bump

[fishman]

your missing the point. The Lineal champ isnt really open to interpretation. It isnt another type of belt. It is: The man who beat the man, unless someone retires or moves up or down in weight and then its the #1 vs the #2 or sometimes the #3, or the title is vacant. Many Lineal titles are vacant because someone retired or moved up or down and then #1 still hasnt fought the #2 in the division or possibly the #3. Cleaning out a division or becoming unified doesnt necessarily make you the linear champ. Beating the man who was does.

[Larry the boss]

1 beat the lineal champ
2 unify all the belts, doing so revives a broken lineage
3 by Ring standards, #1 beats #2 or sometimes #3 revives lineage
technically, Ring belts isn't always synchronized with the lineal title
but it's the best standard to go by tbh

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^this