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

[Box-Office]

All the belts have reasons to like & hate them. I'd say the biggest problem with the lineal title is it can be manipulated the worst as Foreman showed.



Agree. I've considered GGG the 160lb champion since Martinez lost to Cotto. Sadly with how segregated boxing is between promoters, networks, alphabet groups & hell probably seen preferred drug testing organisation you kinda gotta use some logic & common sense in determining who the best guy in a division is.

175 might be the ideal division to see how things have greatly changed in the sport with who should be considered the #1 guy. I considered Stevenson to be the #1 guy until maybe the time of Kovalev beating Pascal (iirc) & than I gave that distinction to Kovalev based on his superior as of late resume.

These days things take to long to happen & sometimes just don't happen so I think guys can "lose" their #1 spot without losing in the ring. Thats kinda a new thing in this era.

The boxing model is great for the promoters/managers cuz anyone can enter it (not much capital investment I assume) and for fighters (purses) & ofcourse they can become the businessmen themselves and go as far as dealing with networks, but bad for fans when you compare it with the MMA model.

[Santa_]

No. The fans know who the two best fighters are in each division.

The 2 best have to fight each other to determine who the best is. Which rarely happens these days due to networks and promoters.

[STREET CLEANER]

It all depends on who are you beating and how many top guys you have beaten.

Here in these threads it goes by perceived ability than actually beating somebody of note

[extracurRICular]

Id argue most casuals have no idea what the hell 'lineal' is

If you want to limit the scope to casual view only, you should limit it also to ABC titles and the RING. To which the answer is probably the RING belt, but its a strange question if so.

[285Kid]

Now that Floyd retire as lienal champion 147 & 154 will not have a lineal for a long time , I don't see no unification in those division anytime soon..

The last lineal champion at 126 was Manny Pacquiao in 2005, Manny was also the last lineal champion at 130 in 2008.. We could be looking at something like that for 147 and 154..

[Robbie Barrett]

Golovkin fans now deciding that lineal means nothing. If it means nothing and titles mean nothing also, then why defend his ducking of Ward by saying he should capture them first?

[Robbie Barrett]

No. The fans know who the two best fighters are in each division.

The 2 best have to fight each other to determine who the best is. Which rarely happens these days due to networks and promoters.

That's how a lineal champ is created.

[Santa_]

That's how a lineal champ is created.

The two best Middleweights at the moment are Golovkin and Jacobs, even though Canelo is lineal. Most fans know this.

[Robbie Barrett]

The two best Middleweights at the moment are Golovkin and Jacobs, even though Canelo is lineal. Most fans know this.

They don't know anything, that's opinions. What is known and is fact is Canleo is the lineal champ.

[Chrismart]

I wouldn't particularly put lineal higher than any other 'belt'. Like all titles, you look at the guy they beat(or defend against) for that title and judge from there.

Lineal means you 'beat the guy, who beat the guy'. But doesn't mean your the best in the division.
If you can duck, avoid and face awful opposition yet still keep lineal status, then it's flawed.

Me personally, I don't think any belt or status is greater than the other. Judge the fighter on his skills, his wins, resume..and generally most people will come to the same decision as who is 'the man' in the division.

Lineal is a nice trinket to have, sure. But i wouldn't say it is greater than other titles overall. As each lineal needs to be assessed individually for its value.