Lineal Champ....greater than any belt? including "The Ring"

[extracurRICular]

Yes or no? wha chu got????

[_Maxi]

No. The true champ is a common sense thing. For example Cotto was the MW lineal champ but the real champ was Golovkin.

Or divisions can have two great champions, such as Kovalev and Stevenson.

[-PBP-]

Not anymore. I think my own judgement is the best way to determine who the man to beat in each division is.

[techliam]

The sooner people stop taking championships at face value alone, the better

Whether its a lineal or organisational championship..

The fighter makes the belt (or championship), not the other away around

Yes, there are cases where the WBO world championship meant more than the lineal championship. Look at Sergey Kovalev right now for example. More often than not, the holder of the lineal championship is one of the best fighters in the division (making most alphabet titlists mediocre), but its not always the case. It never will be

Lineal seems far too convenient in an era where even a lineal champion can be disputed so easily (universal lineage is often hard to achieve), on top of 4 world champions, a skewed RING championship and a potential consensus best.

[SlySlickSmooth]

Roy Jones and Dariusz Michalczewski

[lopetego]

It doesn't mean ****

in the past, the best fighter in the division used to be the lineal champ aswell, but that rarely happens anymore.

Baldomir was lineal champ at some point ffs. Winning a ¨lineal¨ title off someone like Baldomir like Floyd did, or a cripple like Martinez like Cotto did means squat

[Box-Office]

Not anymore. I think my own judgement is the best way to determine who the man to beat in each division is.

Yeah, but unfortunately this is only applicable to boxing junkies. People who are from the same country as (insert paper champ) or casuals would think he is the proper World champ.


So, regardless of how desperately you and I want to diminish the importance of belts, it is futile.

[Box-Office]

The sooner people stop taking championships at face value alone, the better

Whether its a lineal or organisational championship..

The fighter makes the belt (or championship), not the other away around

Yes, there are cases where the WBO world championship meant more than the lineal championship. Look at Sergey Kovalev right now for example. More often than not, the holder of the lineal championship is one of the best fighters in the division (making most alphabet titlists mediocre), but its not always the case. It never will be

Lineal seems far too convenient in an era where even a lineal champion can be disputed so easily (universal lineage is often hard to achieve), on top of 4 world champions, a skewed RING championship and a potential consensus best.

What other cases would you use to support your reasoning?

[extracurRICular]

Yeah, but unfortunately this is only applicable to boxing junkies. People who are from the same country as (insert paper champ) or casuals would think he is the proper World champ.


So, regardless of how desperately you and I want to diminish the importance of belts, it is futile.

hence the importance of some type of title right?? for the life of the sport the noobs/casuals need to be there.......

[Box-Office]

hence the importance of some type of title right?? for the life of the sport the noobs/casuals need to be there.......

Precisely!!!