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

[LacedUp]

Nah. Wlad became lineal when he defeated Chagaev as he was the highest ranked possible contender (save for Vitali).

What about Ali refusing to fight no.1 ranked Holmes for years? He then lost to Leon Spinks. When exactly did Ali lose his right to be called the TRUE champ?

Well, then Holmes became the lineal champ when he beat Shavers who'd beaten Norton for the #1 contender spot. It's the same thing.

You can't just retire, then come back and claim lineage. It's the same as saying LL is still the champ.

I think the situation with holmes is highly debatable. And I think he lost his right to be called the true champ when he retired after the second spinks fight.

[LacedUp]

Again, it is not subjective to say that the lineal champ of a division is the no.1 fighter in that division. That is the one and only requisite for being "the man/the champ", based on the heritage, history and traditions of boxing for centuries, NOT just my opinion. We were all born into the heritage and customs of this sport, and it is not up to us to challenge this. Im a firm believer in respecting the culture.

It's extremely subjective to say that?

Take a case in the 90s. Holyfield had beaten Foreman pretty comfortably. He then lost a close, disputed decision to Moorer, who then beats on Foreman for 10 rounds before getting knocked out.

does this now mean that Foreman all of a sudden is better than Holyfield?

Errrm...

[Levity]

Again, it is not subjective to say that the lineal champ of a division is the no.1 fighter in that division. That is the one and only requisite for being "the man/the champ", based on the heritage, history and traditions of boxing for centuries, NOT just my opinion. We were all born into the heritage and customs of this sport, and it is not up to us to challenge this. Im a firm believer in respecting the culture.

Yes, it is entirely subjective to say that winning a lineal title makes someone the number one fighter in the division. The idea you support has been challenged for years and is not a fact or universally accepted custom, especially today in an environment that is much different than other generations.

Nah. Wlad became lineal when he defeated Chagaev as he was the highest ranked possible contender (save for Vitali).

What about Ali refusing to fight no.1 ranked Holmes for years? He then lost to Leon Spinks. When exactly did Ali lose his right to be called the TRUE champ?

What made Chagaev the highest ranked possible contender?

[RlCKY]

Did you guys know that the actual Lineal Champion at Middleweight at the moment is Darren Barker?

When Lineal Champion Ray Leonard returned from his 6 year retirement in 1997 and a whole 10 years since he won his Lineage in 1987, he defended his MW Lineage against Hector Camacho.

Leonard was of course still the Lineal Champion in 1997, which is definitely a fact. After all, uttering the magic words of "retirement" doesn't mean anything, does it? You can only lose your Lineage in the ring, right?

So, the new Lineal MW Champion Camacho kept his MW Lineage all the way up until 2003 defending it 11 times! Almost breaking Monzon's record, just three away, until he finally lost it to the great Chris Walsh.

Chris Walsh then lost it in his next fight to Dirk Dzemski.

Who then lost it to Sebastian Sylvester in his next fight.

Who then lost it to Amin Asikainen in 2006 to then win it back of him in 2007 in an epic European Title/Lineal Title Unification fight!!! European Title AND Lineage on the line at the same time!

Slvester than valiantly held on to his Lineage until 2008 losing to Felix Sturm.

And then, after long last Felix Sturm lost his Lineage to Daniel Geale.

Then, in 2013, Barker defied the odds and won the LINEAL MIDDLEWEIGHT TITLE OF THE WORLD!!!

Strums epic chance at Lineage redemption is next week. December 7th on a card billed as "Battle of the Lineage"

The epic rematch awaits just next week for the Middleweight Lineage!!

Fun facts learnt from this thread;

Bernard Hopkins held every belt at Middleweight but was never Lineal Champion.

Sebastian Slyvester, 2 time Lineal Champ at MW.

This is some how even more ******ed than saying Ward is currently the Lineal LHW Champion. You didn't think that was possible, did you?

So Sturm went on to beat Barker and then lose to Solimon...The very fighter that GGG is wanting to fight next.

GGG about to be the REAL lineal middleweight champion by the end of the year.

[Levity]

There we go. That logic is as objective as the logic used be those claiming that Cotto is top fighter in the division.

[Erwin Rommel]

This scenario reminds me of Jake Lamotta's career in the 40s. Around 1943 Lamotta was considered by many including Ring Magazine to be the best MW in the world, but Tony Zale was the champion, and since Lamotta wouldn't play ball with the mob, he was denied a shot at the title, until 1949 when he decided to throw a fight for them, then they gave him his shot. Although boxing today isn't as dirty and corrupt as it was back then, but still pretty dirty that GGG more than likely will not get a shot at the lineal title, if ever. That's just disgusting.

[Masters01]

Yes, it is entirely subjective to say that winning a lineal title makes someone the number one fighter in the division. The idea you support has been challenged for years and is not a fact or universally accepted custom, especially today in an environment that is much different than other generations.

It's not a universally accepted custom in boxing, that "to be the man, you have to beat the man"? Wtf? Hahah.

So what is the universally accepted custom in boxing that deciphers who "the man" or the champion of a weight class is? Break the news to us all. We're eagerly watching this space.

[RlCKY]

This scenario reminds me of Jake Lamotta's career in the 40s. Around 1943 Lamotta was considered by many including Ring Magazine to be the best MW in the world, but Tony Zale was the champion, and since Lamotta wouldn't play ball with the mob, he was denied a shot at the title, until 1949 when he decided to throw a fight for them, then they gave him his shot. Although boxing today isn't as dirty and corrupt as it was back then, but still pretty dirty that GGG more than likely will not get a shot at the lineal title, if ever. That's just disgusting.

Didn't you hear? He's going to fight Solimon most likely by the end of the year.

[LacedUp]

It's not a universally accepted custom in boxing, that "to be the man, you have to beat the man"? Wtf? Hahah.

So what is the universally accepted custom in boxing that deciphers who "the man" or the champion of a weight class is? Break the news to us all. We're eagerly watching this space.

What he's saying is true though? Generally the man who beats the man, is the man. But there are many points in history where lineage gets broken up, people retire and come back, champions ducking the best fighters - champions not fighting and the other belt holder cleaning up the rest of the division.

All these have frequently occurred throughout the history of boxing, which has led many historians to question the validity of lineage.

[Levity]

It's not a universally accepted custom in boxing, that "to be the man, you have to beat the man"? Wtf? Hahah.

So what is the universally accepted custom in boxing that deciphers who "the man" or the champion of a weight class is? Break the news to us all. We're eagerly watching this space.

No, it's not universally accepted, as is evidence by this thread, many others, and several rankings. That comment can also be construed to mean that you have to beat a champion to take their title, which is not the same as saying that a lineal champion is the top fighter in the division.

It's up for debate as to how the top fighter in each division should be determined. I believe lineage is a poor method and a more subjective measure would be superior.