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

[Masters01]

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.

Well Im glad we agree then. If you're not challenging Cotto's status as lineal champ, then that's fine. You originally gave the impression that you were. If youre not, and youre not challenging boxing tradition, then this is all moot.

[LacedUp]

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.

Apology accepted.

As I stated in the original post, I hold true to the word that the man who beats the man is the man. However, in some cases, lineage doesn't mean "true champion" as the "true champion" defends against the best in his division. When that ceases as in Floyd Patterson v Liston, the Foreman/Briggs and to some extent the Tyson/Spinks cases, lineage doesn't necessarily mean "true champion".

There was also a case of misrepresentation of lineage in 1978 when Ali retired after beating Spinks, having held two belts and was stripped of one and gave up another - there were two "lineages" so to speak.

There are many flaws in lineage, and only someone who sees something as black and white refuse to see the grey stuff in between.

In the case of GGG and the MW division, I consider him the champion of the division because of this.

[LacedUp]

Well Im glad we agree then. If you're not challenging Cotto's status as lineal champ, then that's fine. You originally gave the impression that you were. If youre not, and youre not challenging boxing tradition, then this is all moot.

Of course I didn't.

I said that the lineal championship does not always = True champ.

[RAV3N]

Cotto is the 160 lineal champ but most people agree that he isnt the best 160 fighter in the world.

[LacedUp]

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

Yes he was lineal champ.

But was he considered THE champ? no. Not by anyone. I would actually like someone to find anyone relating to Briggs as THE champ, because at the point of which he "won" the lineage from Foreman, foreman had been fighting bums for years, whilst being stripped off the IBF/WBA titles (IIRC) because of his wish to fight unranked opponents.

[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.

[LacedUp]

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.

That is exactly what he's referring to.

[Masters01]

Apology accepted.

As I stated in the original post, I hold true to the word that the man who beats the man is the man. However, in some cases, lineage doesn't mean "true champion" as the "true champion" defends against the best in his division. When that ceases as in Floyd Patterson v Liston, the Foreman/Briggs and to some extent the Tyson/Spinks cases, lineage doesn't necessarily mean "true champion".

There was also a case of misrepresentation of lineage in 1978 when Ali retired after beating Spinks, having held two belts and was stripped of one and gave up another - there were two "lineages" so to speak.

There are many flaws in lineage, and only someone who sees something as black and white refuse to see the grey stuff in between.

In the case of GGG and the MW division, I consider him the champion of the division because of this.

Okay so you're distinguishing the terms "lineal champ" from "true champ". The former is a fact (Cotto IS the lineal champ, which you're not challenging), and the latter is your opinion. You're entitled to your opinion. I have a different opinion. I am a huge believer in structure and order, so when discussing who our boxing champions are, Im only interested in the facts.

[BattlingNelson]

Yes he was lineal champ.

But was he considered THE champ? no. Not by anyone. I would actually like someone to find anyone relating to Briggs as THE champ, because at the point of which he "won" the lineage from Foreman, foreman had been fighting bums for years, whilst being stripped off the IBF/WBA titles (IIRC) because of his wish to fight unranked opponents.

He was considered the lineal champ. Nothing more and nothing less. Lineage does not equal best although the lineal champion more often than not, is the best.

[Masters01]

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.

So Cotto isnt the lineal champ? Or like LacedUp, you feel that Cotto is the lineal champ, but just not the "true champ" in your own individual opinion, however you define that?