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

[Levity]

Why should holding a title be any more impressive than what it took to win that title?

Claims of who 'the man' is shouldn't be based on titles. Giving credibility to lineal titles in such a way is similar to saying a fighter is world class simply because they won an alphabet belt. In each case the fighter is being evaluated on winning the belt rather than what they did to win the belt.

[Levity]

Champ is champ

Best is up for speculation...opinion based

GGG is a champion too. It's opinion whether being a so-called lineal champ makes Cotto the top MW anymore than GGG holding a title does.

[Masters01]

The two aren't the same at all though. As I've eluded to in this thread, there are plenty of examples in history where lineage doesn't = true champ.

You have to preface this with saying "in my opinion..". You are stating it as though it is more than you the mere opinion that you formed independently within the confines of your head. It has no bearing past this, just as my totally opposite opinion doesnt. Lineage is not like this, it is factual, unaffected by opinion.

And what's worse is that you ARE challenging boxing tradition. The lineal champ has always been "the man", "the champion". Boxing tradition doesnt allow space for opinion in this, so long as the new man (Cotto) beat the previous man (Martinez). It's utterly futile and silly that you're even taking this path. You can say Cotto isnt the best in your opinion, but you must acknowledge him as the man.

[BattlingNelson]

The two aren't the same at all though. As I've eluded to in this thread, there are plenty of examples in history where lineage doesn't = true champ.



I agree, but that's not the discussion here though. Lineal doesn't mean = true champ in 100% of the cases, but it does more often than not.

Thing is that lineage can be tracked and followed. Who the 'true' champion is, if 'true' means the best that is, is up for debate and subjective reasoning.

I like lineage for historical purposes. To me, Tyson became champ when he beat Spinks, Holmes became champ when he beat Ali etc. I think most people would say that Tyson and Holmes was the best in the division long before they got the lineage.

On the other side you have Roy Jones who most regarded as the best LHW BITD, but the lineage belonged to Michalszewski so it is absolutely possible to argue that Jones was never the man of the division.

Even though I feel that GGG is the best at 160 and has been that for some time I still feel he needs to beat Cotto to get the ultimate recognition like Holmes had to beat Ali and Tyson Spinks.

[Masters01]

Here is the real question, do you think that Cotto will beat GGG at 160?

In my opinion? I think GGG will probably win, but i give Cotto more of a shot than others do. Maybe a 70/30 type fight. But I want to be clear that this is my opinion, and in boxing as it's always been, if you havent proved it, you havent done it. No exceptions. We have to maintain structure in this sport.

[Levity]

Lineage is not like this, it is factual, unaffected by opinion.

It would also be objective to say that whoever holds the most titles in a division is 'the man'. It would be objective to say who makes the most successful defenses is 'at the top'.

Objective doesn't mean superior

[The Big Dunn]

I know everyone loves the big puncher but last time I CHECKED you have to beat the man to be the man.


People anointed Mattyssee, which was highly disrespectful to Garcia who earned his title and he went on to proof who the best was.

GGG beat a top contender in Geale now esome people are saying he is the middleweight champion

Facts: He is the number 1 contender, He holds A middleweight belt, but Miguel Cotto is the one true middleweight champion


I agree that GGG is the class of the middleweight division and I favor him to beat Cotto but until he does, he is nothing more than the number one contender

Why would you even concern yourself with the opinions of some of NSB's worse *******s? Of course Cotto is the lineal champ.

I would sad GGG is either #1 or #2 depending on where you put quillin, who is also undefeated and beaten the same level of comp. I'd favor GGG given his win over Gaele.

[LacedUp]

You have to preface this with saying "in my opinion..". You are stating it as though it is more than you the mere opinion that you formed independently within the confines of your head. It has no bearing past this, just as my totally opposite opinion doesnt. Lineage is not like this, it is factual, unaffected by opinion.

And what's worse is that you ARE challenging boxing tradition. The lineal champ has always been "the man", "the champion". Boxing tradition doesnt allow space for opinion in this, so long as the new man (Cotto) beat the previous man (Martinez). It's utterly futile and silly that you're even taking this path.

Listen, "boxing tradition" has always critiqued lineage. That's nothing new. Only in your head does lineage, unquestionably, define who the "true" champ is.

As you can see, plenty of other people are challenging you on this issue, so I guess i'm not the only 'idiot' around, huh?

I've given you examples going all the way back to the 50s, but you disregard them to suit your agenda. As I also said before, you don't have the wisdom to challenge me on this subject, because you haven't read up on what actually happened, but just go with the notion you've read somewhere that lineage equal championship, which it doesn't always. It's a flawed championship on many levels and has proven faulty on more occasion than one.

For some reason you don't wish to divulge into those instances, which is up to you, but to me it seems like you just don't know enough about it.

[therealpugilist]

You have to preface this with saying "in my opinion..". You are stating it as though it is more than you the mere opinion that you formed independently within the confines of your head. It has no bearing past this, just as my totally opposite opinion doesnt. Lineage is not like this, it is factual, unaffected by opinion.

And what's worse is that you ARE challenging boxing tradition. The lineal champ has always been "the man", "the champion". Boxing tradition doesnt allow space for opinion in this, so long as the new man (Cotto) beat the previous man (Martinez). It's utterly futile and silly that you're even taking this path.

This about sums it up

Ggg has a belt he won from someone he probably never heard of....cotto on the otherhand fought the man and beat him.

[Masters01]

It would also be objective to say that whoever holds the most titles in a division is 'the man'. It would be objective to say who makes the most successful defenses is 'at the top'.

Objective doesn't mean superior

In what sport? Because in the sport of boxing, "the man" is the man who beat the man. You never heard the boxing adage "to be the man, you have to beat the man"?. Cotto beat the man.

This is boxing as it's always been in its proud heritage and illustrious history. And guess what? It was like this in 1914, and its like this in 2014.