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

[Robbie Barrett]

I predicted Fury would beat Klitschko from the Southpaw stance. He won in orthodox but oh well a win is a win.


http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...4#post15899564

You went against the the "fans" who "know"?

[Santa_]

You went against the the "fans" who "know"?

Most fans are casuals. I'm a real boxing fan.


Pretty sure all those Klitschko votes were Freedom alts too, lol.

[Weebler I]

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.

notsureifserious...whatever about Stevenson's abilities at 37 or 38, great champions take on top opposition, not Sukhotsky, Bika & Karpency.

Stevenson' checked out of trying to be a great champion at the end of 2013

[Larry the boss]

It is all about.WHO DID YOU BEAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!RESUME

[extracurRICular]

It is all about.WHO DID YOU BEAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!RESUME

soooooooo that's a vote for lineal?

[Weebler I]

soooooooo that's a vote for lineal?

Larry & the Floms are tying themselves in knots to discredit the G-Bomber, pay it no mind.

[extracurRICular]

Larry & the Floms are tying themselves in knots to discredit the G-Bomber, pay it no mind.

hahaa sounds like a motown group.......hahaa

[Thread Stealer]

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.

Pretty much.

It's not exactly a rare instance when a Lineal champ is not the best fighter in the division.

Michael Spinks was the lineal champ when he faced Mike Tyson. Tyson was the active fighter, cleaning out the division.

Carlos Baldomir was the lineal champ when he faced Floyd Mayweather. Sergio Martinez was the lineal champ when he faced Miguel Cotto. Shannon Briggs was the lineal champ when he faced Lennox Lewis, after he got a lucky decision over old George Foreman. No one thought Foreman was the best HW at the time. DM was the lineal champ when Roy Jones had the WBA, WBC, and IBF belts. Does anyone think he was a better fighter than RJJ? Samuel Serrano was the lineal champ when Alexis Arguello was at 130, and Arguello is arguably #1 all-time at 130.

[soul_survivor]

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.

Good answer, however, with Kovalev's wins over Pascal and Hopkins, I'd label him number one now. I was one of the few who still backed Stevenson as THE guy at LHW but sadly he hasn't fought the same level of opponents as Kovalev and turned down the big fights. Stevenson is number two but regarded as "lineal".

[LoadedWraps]

Its more about who you beat, and when you beat them, but you can't always discount the belts, especially if the title holders are elite and earned them in a good fight, or if a overachiever/paper champ beat a legit opponent to get it before they lost it to an elite fighter. Depends on the context.

For example Fury if Fury unifies he is the undisputed: both the lineal champ and the best in the division. The kingpin.

Guys like Pac-monster who beat lesser versions of Hatton and DLH than Floyd, is partially why Floyd is considered the greater fighter, is another example.