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

[LacedUp]

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.

You make good points, and those are points I agree with mostly - just not the Ali instance. Ali gave up his lineage when he retired. It was then divided in two - yet Holmes gained it when he beat an almost 40 year old Ali who hadn't fought for a couple of years. It's the equivalent of saying Wlad will only be the "true champ" when Lennox comes back and get's beaten by him. Although the time of retirement is much longer in the latter case, the principle remains the same.

To me, Tyson became undisputed champ when he beat Tucker because Spinks had ducked tucker to fight Cooney I believe, and decided not to enter Don King's round robin of the undisputed championship. So he's not fighting the other top guys, but holds on to lineage regardless. I don't feel that's a true champion.

As I said, lineage is a nice thing to hold on to - but in quite a few cases, like when you duck the number 1 challenger or in the case of GGG/Martinez, another belt holder and don't fight for a long time - and then lose, you give up the right to be called the TRUE champ.

[Levity]

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.

That being lineal champion makes someone the top fighter in the division is simply one opinion among many. BoxRec rankings, for example, don't automatically rank someone #1 for beating the highest ranked fighter in the division or whoever is generally consider lineal champion.

I'm not sure why proponents of lineal champ = #1 think their opinion is some metaphysical certainty. People have challenged this notion for years, and it is especially out of place in today's boxing landscape where politics takes precedence.

[LacedUp]

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.

Perhaps, but it wasn't so in 1960, nor was it so in 79/78 and neither was it so in '97.

[Masters01]

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.

I dont want to "divulge into those instances" (lol) because it's all opinion-based. Im not up for discussing who's the best in my opinion, and who's the best in your opinion, because in boxing, if you havent proved it, you havent done it. Both our opinions mean **** if the fighter's havent proved it.

Cotto on the other hand has proved and earned recognition of being the lineal champ, which is what counts in boxing.

[LacedUp]

That being lineal champion makes someone the top fighter in the division is simply one opinion among many. BoxRec rankings, for example, don't automatically rank someone #1 for beating the highest ranked fighter in the division or whoever is generally consider lineal champion.

I'm not sure why proponents of lineal champ = #1 think their opinion is some metaphysical certainty. People have challenged this notion for years, and it is especially out of place in today's boxing landscape where politics takes precedence.

Neither does Ring Magazine. For example, Holyfield was still considered champ when he fought Lennox Lewis the first time, even though Lennox had beaten 'lineal' champ Shannon Briggs - who wasn't considered by anyone as the real champion of the division. He was just a contender who happened to have lineage.

Yet, according to this guy, Briggs was reigning supreme.

[RetroSpeed05]

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.

Lineal is cool, but if you trace back the WW Lineal, Floyd won it back when he beat Mosley, Are you telling me Mosley and the Lineal title Floyd won is better than a win over Pac at that time? We both know a Pac on your resume in '10 is better for your legacy.

[Levity]

Cotto on the other hand has proved and earned recognition of being the lineal champ, which is what counts in boxing.

It's simply an opinion that being lineal champion is what counts in boxing.

[RAV3N]

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.

Well at least you still know who the best 160 fighter is.

I know you should have to beat the lineal champ but what if the lineal champ never wants to fight you and its quiet easily done in the present state of boxing.

[Levity]

Lineal is cool, but if you trace back the WW Lineal, Floyd won it back when he beat Mosley, Are you telling me Mosley and the Lineal title Floyd won is better than a win over Pac at that time? We both know a Pac on your resume in '10 is better for your legacy.

Of course, but for those who adhere to lineage it's simply about winning a title and not how good the opponent was or how they were beaten.

I bet the same people complain about alphabet title BS.

[Erwin Rommel]

Another question. How long will Cotto be considered Lineal champ if he doesn't fight anyone in the MW division for the next few years and just fights guys at 154 lbs until he retires?

Someone here mentions boxing tradition and lineage, well boxing tradition is also about the champion fighting the no. 1 contender, in this case it's GGG.