Linear Champions. Are They Bad For The Sport?

[kafkod]

The idea of the linear champ is an attempt by fans and boxing writers to recreate the good old days when there was only one champion in each division and everybody knew who he was.

But back then The Champion had to fight the best opponents available, or be stripped of his title. And because the alphabet organisations never work together on anything, this doesn't apply to the linear champ. He can only lose his title in the ring or by retiring, otherwise the "linear" concept is meaningless.

This can lead to catch-22 situations, with unscrupulous promoters ripping off the fans by continuing to sell their fighter as the lineal - and therefore the true champ - even though he isn't the best in his division and has no intention of fighting the best. And we've all seen how the alphabet boys are prepared to go along with these deceptions for their own political and financial purposes.

I'm begining to think that the whole concept of the linear champion is not only pointless but actually detrimental to the sport. Do any of you guys agree with me about that, or am I missing something here?

[jas]

Everyone knows golovkin > cotto

And Herrera beat Danny Garcia and Garcia ducked the rematch

[Black Barty]

I don't know if it's detrimental, but it's definitely a ******, outdated concept.

The sanctioning bodies may be corrupt, but at least they have mandatories, and every once in a while they enforce them. So their champions (or most of them) have to fight at least some remotely deserving challengers every now and then.

But the "lineal MW title" is currently held by a guy who has yet to fight a top, prime MW challenger and doesn't plan on fighting one in the foreseeable future.

Erdei held the "lineal LHW title" for years fighting absolute bums.

Casamayor was lineal at LW after over a year of inactivity and a robbery win over Santa Cruz.

These examples should be enough to show how pointless "lineal championship" is. If there are no mandatories, the title is simply worthless.

[Rip Chudd]

Never heard of a "linear" champ

[Black Barty]

Never heard of a "linear" champ

U so smart.

[teddycanyon]

*Lineal.


But you make a good point though. Cotto and Sergio before him are prime examples of this. If you're not willing to fight the best like the old lineal champions did, even if you did happen to beat THE guy to win the strap, you're a paper champion in my estimation. But the concept of lineal elevates a fighter to a quasi-WBA Super Champion status where they seem partially immune from challengers to the throne. Go down the list of the lineal champs in boxing right now and tell me how many of them are actually the best fighters in their division. Adonis Stevenson? Gimme a break. Cotto? The guy won the "middleweight title" at 155 pounds and didn't have to go through GGG. Does Yoan Pablo Hernandez beat Marco Huck or Denis Ledbedev? And then you get the whole Danny Garcia situation where Eric Gomez comes out and says because he beat Matthysse to become undisputed, he's entitled to fight guys like Rod Salka for eternity and still be considered champ.

And it's detrimental to the clarity of who should be deemed elite, because a lot of these fighters wouldn't even have a case to be considered the best if not for the distinction of being lineal.

Boxing isn't like tennis where the #1 and #2 generally collide at some point and the winner of the big tournament finishes year end #1 (I'm thinking Djokovic vs. Federer at Wimbledon this year). The #1 isn't always mandated to fight the #2 or even the #3 or #4. And in that case if we think the #2 has eclipsed the #1 through strength of victories and the old fashioned "eye-test", that should be sufficient to replace the fighter at the top in my view.

[kafkod]

Never heard of a "linear" champ

Have you ever heard of a lineal champ? And do you know what the word "synonymous" means?

[Kagami Taiga]

linear is the same thing as saying lineal.

[soul_survivor]

How can the guy who beat the best be a bad idea?

Martienz was THE MAN at MW, you can **** on about GGG but he wasn't even relevant till last year, Martinez solidified his position as the best after he beat Pavlik, Williams and Jr, who was then the number 2 guy and on a string of wins over 4 top level mws. Btw GGG became relevant and we got Martinez v Cotto can you blame the ageing champ for taking that fight? I can't.

Now Cotto as lineal champion is not so good cos we all know he's not taking GGG, however, who said the lineal champ is always the best guy in the division? GGG may well be the best and Cotto just happens to be the champ who carries on the lineage. At some stage the best will have the lineage again, as it has happened in various divisions before with guys like Vitali, Wlad, Hopkins, Tyson and so on.

[Kagami Taiga]

The idea of the linear champ is an attempt by fans and boxing writers to recreate the good old days when there was only one champion in each division and everybody knew who he was.

But back then The Champion had to fight the best opponents available, or be stripped of his title. And because the alphabet organisations never work together on anything, this doesn't apply to the linear champ. He can only lose his title in the ring or by retiring, otherwise the "linear" concept is meaningless.

This can lead to catch-22 situations, with unscrupulous promoters ripping off the fans by continuing to sell their fighter as the lineal - and therefore the true champ - even though he isn't the best in his division and has no intention of fighting the best. And we've all seen how the alphabet boys are prepared to go along with these deceptions for their own political and financial purposes.

I'm begining to think that the whole concept of the linear champion is not only pointless but actually detrimental to the sport. Do any of you guys agree with me about that, or am I missing something here?

however this idea that champions often fought the best available fighters is absolutely false. its nonsense. therefore, everything u say after that is invalidated.