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

[Masters01]

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.

He denied that the universally accepted custom in boxing is that "to be the man, you have to beat the man". He said over and over that this is not a universally held custom.

So i ask again (to you and to him): if the above is wrong, then what is the universally accepted custom in boxing that deciphers who "the man" or the champion of a weight class is? Define this clearly, like I have.

[Levity]

I answered already.

[Masters01]

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.

Again more and more denial of my point, and no assertion of your own point. This is slimy and it reveals intellectual dishonesty on your part.

You outrightly refuse to point out what is the universally held custom/tradition in boxing that defines who the man is in a weight class.

It seems that you dont believe there is one? Do you think there is no custom in boxing that defines who the champion of a weight class is? or are you just unwilling/unable to define it? It's simply one or the other.

[LacedUp]

He denied that the universally accepted custom in boxing is that "to be the man, you have to beat the man". He said over and over that this is not a universally held custom.

So i ask again (to you and to him): if the above is wrong, then what is the universally accepted custom in boxing that deciphers who "the man" or the champion of a weight class is? Define this clearly, like I have.

Listen, it's not set in stone.

To be the man, you've got to beat the man. I agree. However, as I stated in the other thread that lead to this thread, it has it's flaws and is therefore not always true.

As in this case, was Martinez really THE man? He probably lost to Martin Murray, had multiple knee operations, was inactive, old, had 60 fights on his back. Only on paper was he THE man.

Which is a reason for why that lineage = the man theory is heavily flawed.

[Masters01]

Listen, it's not set in stone.

To be the man, you've got to beat the man. I agree. However, as I stated in the other thread that lead to this thread, it has it's flaws and is therefore not always true.

As in this case, was Martinez really THE man? He probably lost to Martin Murray, had multiple knee operations, was inactive, old, had 60 fights on his back. Only on paper was he THE man.

Which is a reason for why that lineage = the man theory is heavily flawed.

So define it! Simple.

You think that the rule is: "to be the man, you have to beat the man, except for when you say so"? Or "to be the man, you have to beat the man, except when the lineage is held hostage for 2 years"?. I am challenging you to define your understanding (not deny mine) of how boxing heritage deciphers who the champion is in a weight class and you repetitively avoid this challenge.

[Levity]

Again more and more denial of my point, and no assertion of your own point. This is slimy.

You outrightly refuse to point out what is the universally held custom/tradition in boxing that defines who the man is in a weight class.

It seems that you dont believe there is one, and that you believe that there is no custom in boxing that defines who the champion of a weight class is? Do you think there is no custom that does this, or are you just unwilling/unable to define it? It's simply one or the other.

There is no reason why my argument that being lineal champion doesn't make someone the top fighter in the division relies on the existence of another accepted method for determining who 'the man' in the division is.

I don't believe there is currently an established and largely agreed upon method for determining who the top fighter in the division is. There could be several different possible methods, such as going by lineage, number of title defenses or belts held, or assessments of a fighter's quality of opposition and performances. In each case subjectivity is involved, and a more objective measure isn't necessarily a better one; ranking fighters based on how often they wore Everlast gloves would be entirely objective.

[Masters01]

There is no reason why my argument that being lineal champion doesn't make someone the top fighter in the division relies on the existence of some other accepted method for determining who 'the man' in the division is.

I don't believe there is currently an established and largely agreed upon method for determining who the top fighter in the division is. There could be several different possible methods, such as going by lineage, number of title defenses of belts held, or assessments of a fighter's quality of opposition and performances. In each case subjectivity is involved, and a more objective measure isn't necessarily a better one; ranking fighters based on how often they wore Everlast gloves would be entirely objective.

This is the first time you actually divulged what you think. You have now admitted that you think that there are no agreed upon boxing customs that decide who the champion of a weight class is. You think that all the currently and historically recognised champions of each weight division are all merely opinion-based and up for discussion.

Fine by me. Im just pleased i got you to admit that. The rest of us can now discard you without reprieve.

[BattlingNelson]

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.

Not quite. Timing is of essense. This was about a year after Ali's second fight with Spinks, and nobody was certain if Ali had retired for good or not.

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

Again timing is the key. I don't know how real nerds deal with this stuff. Cliff Rold would know, but at the time of Wlad winning over Chagaev, it had been clear for years that LL was retired and definetely not a top HW.

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.

See above.

[RetroSpeed05]

To me this is really simple, once your the Lineal champ you have a responsibility to fight the best in your division since you hold the the legit title.

MW top 5
Cotto-champ
GGG-#1
Gale-#2
Quillin-#3
Sergio-#4
Soliman-#5

If Cotto doesn't fight GGG, like Sergio did its because its a risk and clear indication who really is the best MW at the moment. Abel Sanchez said it him self if your the Lineal champ either fight at MW or drop the titles. IDC about making the most money with Canelo as fans that's not are problem.

[LacedUp]

So define it! Simple.

You think that the rule is: "to be the man, you have to beat the man, except for when you say so"? Or "to be the man, you have to beat the man, except when the lineage is held hostage for 2 years"?. I am challenging you to define your understanding (not deny mine) of how boxing heritage deciphers who the champion is in a weight class and you repetitively avoid this challenge.

But why does there need to be a definition of something that goes by on a case-by-case basis?

As I said, the rule is you beat the man to become the man - but there are exceptions as I have clearly eluded to in this thread on multiple occasions.