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

[BattlingNelson]

Would you agree or disagree Bat, that lineage doesn't always = true champ?

Yes or no?

Well, I'm a firm believer in lineage. It doesn't mean you are the best though.

[Masters01]

Try telling LACEDUP that

LaceUp is an idiot. Discard his opinion and put it down to wishful thinking. They're trying to challenge principles in boxing that have held true for decades on decades - if you beat the man, you are the man. Cotto beat the man, and he is the man. There are no exceptions in this, never has been.

If some casual fans want to live in a bubble where they can twist the principles of boxing steeped in all of its history, then allow them their time in their bubble. In the meantime, everyone who counts (boxing insiders, experts, writers, the Ring etc) rightfully acknowledge Cotto as the champ, and they tell the stories. Not some poster on NSB.

[bojangles1987]

As I've said in the thread you are obviously relating to, this is not even remotely similar to Matthysse/Garcia.

It reminds me more of when Khan was a belt holder and Bradley was at 140 - Bradley didn't want to fight Khan, who instead unified vs Judah. After that, Khan was recognized as the champ.

Once again, in most cases, the man who beats the man is the champ - but it's not strictly like that in 100% of the cases. Even though you were trying to argue Shannon Briggs was the true heavyweight champ in 97, I doubt many on here would agree with you.

It's just the way it is.

Every hyped puncher ever from now on is Matthysse, and every boxer they are expected to beat is Garcia.

[LacedUp]

Well, I'm a firm believer in lineage. It doesn't mean you are the best though.

Being the best is debatable until proven. I agree, as I said to him in the other thread, but there are exceptions i.e. who considered Shannon Briggs the 'real champ' in '97 when he met Lewis for instance?

Not many. I think maybe Briggs himself, but other than that I'm not sure how much that lineage meant since it was based on beating the likes of Lou Savarese and who else. Similarly, an inactive champion who also happens to fight below par opposition - his reign as "the true champ" should be considered. I.e. George Foreman - Shannon Briggs lineage.

[LacedUp]

LaceUp is an idiot. Discard his opinion and put it down to wishful thinking. They're trying to challenge principles in boxing that have held true for decades on decades - if you beat the man, you are the man. Cotto beat the man, and he is the man. There are no exceptions in this, never has been.

If some casual fans want to live in a bubble where they can twist the principles of boxing steeped in all of its history, then allow them their time in their bubble. In the meantime, everyone who counts (boxing insiders, experts, writers, the Ring etc) rightfully acknowledge Cotto as the champ, and they tell the stories. Not some poster on NSB.

Are you trying to challenge my credibility? You are funny.

There has been plenty of exceptions, but you do not have the wisdom to challenge me on this subject, hence you resort to name-calling.

[Masters01]

Would you agree or disagree Bat, that lineage doesn't always = true champ?

Yes or no?

Lineage is always how its worked since forever. No exceptions. You are just some guy on some internet forum trying to challenge long-held traditions in boxing.

You probably will struggle to accept this, but your opinion will really make no impact whatsoever on Cotto's status as the lineal middleweight champ lol.

[LacedUp]

Every hyped puncher ever from now on is Matthysse, and every boxer they are expected to beat is Garcia.

Yes and the situation is not at all close to being the same, it's ridiculous.

The man was saying Shannon Briggs was the real champ in '97, I mean, that's just ridiculous.

[LacedUp]

Lineage is always how its worked since forever. No exceptions. You are just some guy on some internet forum trying to challenge long-held traditions in boxing.

You probably will struggle to accept this, but your opinion will really make no impact whatsoever on Cotto's status as the lineal middleweight champ lol.

I have never disregarded Cotto's status as the lineal middleweight championship at all.

And I am not just "some poster", just because you are. In fact, historically, which you, as I pointed out before, don't have the wisdom to challenge me on, lineage has been disputed and critiqued excessively. You would know that if you knew anything about boxing history,

which you don't.

[Masters01]

Are you trying to challenge my credibility? You are funny.

There has been plenty of exceptions, but you do not have the wisdom to challenge me on this subject, hence you resort to name-calling.

I called you an idiot. I apologise. I just feel that individual fans who think that they can alter boxing tradition that has been upholded for centuries are not very informed on how this sport works, or at least overestimate their influence in the sport. You are not bigger than boxing.

[BattlingNelson]

Being the best is debatable until proven. I agree, as I said to him in the other thread, but there are exceptions i.e. who considered Shannon Briggs the 'real champ' in '97 when he met Lewis for instance?

Not many. I think maybe Briggs himself, but other than that I'm not sure how much that lineage meant since it was based on beating the likes of Lou Savarese and who else. Similarly, an inactive champion who also happens to fight below par opposition - his reign as "the true champ" should be considered. I.e. George Foreman - Shannon Briggs lineage.

I wouldn't know how to define 'real champ', but Briggs was lineal that's for sure.