boxers win championships in the ring not based off speculation and popularity

[Levity]

This is the first time you actually divulged what you think. You have now admitted that you think that there are no agreed upon boxing customs that decide who the champion of a weight class is. You think that all the currently and historically recognised champions of each weight division are all merely opinion-based and up for discussion.

Fine by me. Im just pleased i got you to admit that. The rest of us can now discard you without reprieve.

I posted my belief that there is no universally accepted method pages ago, so you're incorrect that I only admitted it last post.

There are accepted means of determining who holds sanctioning body titles, such as the WBC flyweight title, but champion as you're using it is just a concept that takes no official form and as this thread indicates it's debatable as to what one must accomplish to become the top fighter in a division rather than just a titleholder.

There used to be one world title in each division, so those who held them could claim to be the divisional champion in the sense of holding the only world title, but those were only titles of the first sense and today there are multiple per division, so fighters cannot make the same claim just based on winning a title.

[LacedUp]

Not quite. Timing is of essense. This was about a year after Ali's second fight with Spinks, and nobody was certain if Ali had retired for good or not.

Again timing is the key. I don't know how real nerds deal with this stuff. Cliff Rold would know, but at the time of Wlad winning over Chagaev, it had been clear for years that LL was retired and definetely not a top HW.

See above.

Yes, well, so Vitali wasn't really the lineal champ when he beat Sanders? I mean, we know Vitali had his ranking artificially improved as we have learned from Cliff Rold in the past. But it was only a couple of months or so after Lennox had retired, so technically, even though Lennox had informed the ring magazine of his retirement, thereby giving up his lineage, he was still the lineal champion even though the lineal championship was vacant?

Also, even though Wladimir Klitschko vs Ruslan Chagaev was touted as the lineal championship - I think there's more of a case of Povetkin-Wladimir being the lineal championship as Vitali had retired. Even though Vitali was Wladimir's brother, we shouldn't make exceptions to the rule of lineage - or so some posters would have us believe.

I honestly can't see much sense in this argument. When you retire, you retire. And Ali had given up his belt as a statement of his retirement as well.

It was most certainly also clear at the time of the Holmes-Ali fight that Ali's condition had worsened and he was nowhere near the fighter he once was - and definitely not a top HW either-

[Daddy T]

But why does there need to be a definition of something that goes by on a case-by-case basis?

As I said, the rule is you beat the man to become the man - but there are exceptions as I have clearly eluded to in this thread on multiple occasions.

dude you might as well argue with the wall as try to talk sense to that turd

[LacedUp]

dude you might as well argue with the wall as try to talk sense to that turd

Yeah so I can see. To think his first post in this thread was "LacedUp is an idiot".

Oh well, just trying to figure out who's alt he is.

[kiaba360]

Cotto is considered to be the lineal champion. What is being asked is that he further legitimizes his last performance by giving other MW's an opportunity. If he decides that 3G is too risky, then fight Quillin/Rubio/Murray/Soliman. The worse thing Cotto could do is not defend the belt at least once. If Canelo/Cotto is to be made, make it @160 so there's a chance that the lineage can continue.

[Bushbaby]

You cannot be referring to Cotto GGG. Because GGG is the man at 160, not Cotto. Martinez wanted no part of GGG and Cotto had better duck the $h!t outa GGG. This post would have made sense at 147. But the long time bane of 160 is the man there. Not a fat welterweight who gambled for glory and got it.

You were inspecific. I sought clarity on your part, so I presented you with options designed to make you be clear. You are clear now. You accept Cotto's lineage (a factual thing) but you think that he isnt the "true champ" in your own eyes (an opinion thing).

Your opinion is GGG is the "true champ", my opinion is that Cotto is "true champ" (lol this feels so silly), yet both our opinions are trumped by the fact that Cotto is the world-recognised lineal champ. You are entitled to your opinion, and I am unmoved so long as you and others recognise who actually earned the recognition of champ, via lineage and thus via fact. Pretty sure we're done here.

You need to be done. Because I haven't stated anything about true champion and lineal champion. The original post there for you to observe again. But my opinion, is that GGG is the best fighter at 160, (hence my calling him the man). I don't care about Cotto's lineal title. I'm happy for him because I am in fact a fan. But the only thing I said or in relation to Cotto/GGG is that GGG would beat the living crap out of Cotto and Cotto better not fight him. I never uttered a word about who is the real lineal, or who the true champ is, so I guess we are done here, tata.

[Masters01]

But why does there need to be a definition of something that goes by on a case-by-case basis?

As I said, the rule is you beat the man to become the man - but there are exceptions as I have clearly eluded to in this thread on multiple occasions.

If it's a case-by-case thing, then there have to be definable guidelines to help with these case-by-case calls? The alternative of this is to have a free-for-all type criterion. Do you disagree? If not.....

Define where these "exceptions" take place. You still - 9 pages on - havent offered up a single guideline, and it's become obvious that you dont have any.

[Masters01]

You need to be done. Because I haven't stated anything about true champion and lineal champion. The original post there for you to observe again. But my opinion, is that GGG is the best fighter at 160, (hence my calling him the man). I don't care about Cotto's lineal title. I'm happy for him because I am in fact a fan. But the only thing I said or in relation to Cotto/GGG is that GGG would beat the living crap out of Cotto and Cotto better not fight him. I never uttered a word about who is the real lineal, or who the true champ is, so I guess we are done here, tata.

You explicitly call Golovkin "the man" which is boxing-speak for "the lineal champ". When we in boxing say, "to be the man, you have to beat the man" we are discussing lineage and lineal champions. if i have misplaced judgment anywhere (which i did), it's that I showed too much faith in you and presumed that you understood this

[Bushbaby]

You explicitly call Golovkin "the man" which is boxing-speak for "the lineal champ". When we in boxing say, "to be the man, you have to beat the man" we are discussing lineage and lineal champions. if i have misplaced judgment anywhere (which i did), it's that I showed too much faith in you and presumed that you understood this

I can see you think you're smart, but don't act like you posting facts because you aren't. When I said GGG is the man at 160, I mean he's the best fighter there. As I already (clearly) stated. So if I tell you something directly, there's no way possible that you can tell me that's what I didn't mean. Truth is you've put too much fate in what you wanted me to say. But what you want to hear and what I said are not the same.

[Masters01]

I can see you think you're smart, but don't act like you posting facts because you aren't. When I said GGG is the man at 160, I mean he's the best fighter there. As I already (clearly) stated. So if I tell you something directly, there's no way possible that you can tell me that's what I didn't mean. Truth is you've put too much fate in what you wanted me to say. But what you want to hear and what I said are not the same.

You explicitly (and directly) said "GGG is the man at 160". As you just said, if you told me something directly then i cant tell you that you didnt mean it..... so you did mean to say it

Well, being "the man" in boxing custom means being the lineal champ, which again you meant to say (despite being wrong). I've held you accountable to this incongruity, but you are however entitled to backtrack however far you deem necessary