Canelo is still Lineal/Ring champ at middleweight

[Jsmooth9876]

Same ones he had to avoid Ward.

Yeah? When did GGG drop that 168 lb title to avoid fighting Ward?

Let the adults talk and get back to the kids table junior.

[CaneloMaidana]

Yeah? When did GGG drop that 168 lb title to avoid fighting Ward?

Let the adults talk and get back to the kids table junior.

154 to 168 you snake

[techliam]

Thing is Dariusz wasnt the cash cow or a big name...thats why i said Canelo has that to negotiate with

The average Larry flip flop here

Your first post said Canelo has leverage still, because he remains the GBP-Lineal titlist. Yet this one shows you arguing that it is name value that keeps him relevant, therefore making the titles irrelevant. Which is it?

That Roy scenario is a thorn in your side haha. Its exactly the same scenario that Golovkin is in (WBO title aside) but your bias won't let you admit it. I admire how hard you try though.

We get it, you don't like Golovkin

[Pigeons]

What a load of ****

Boxing is about being the best, being no.1. Lineal titles have never set out to crown that achievement. They were an early attempt to divert from ABC titles, but have since been exposed time and time again.

Its on you to justify your approach - i.e holding the lineal title to different standards. A title has to be legitimised by the fighter holding it, whether its an ABC title, the GBP title (ring magazine) or a lineal title in its many forms.

So let me ask, why do you see being the consensus best, the no.1, as a lesser achievement than becoming a 'lineal' champion (your holy grail)? I'd like to see your justifications

Calm down buddy, I don't have a dog in this race. Golovkin is clearly the #1 MW and Canelo's refusal to fight him mitigates the importance of the lineal title at MW. There, are you happy?

With that said, I laugh at anyone that claims the lineal title means less than something like the Top Rank belt, I mean the WBO belt. The lineal title indicates that you either won it in a 1 vs. 2 matchup or you are the man that beat the man (that beat the man that beat the man) that did.

[techliam]

Calm down buddy, I don't have a dog in this race. Golovkin is clearly the #1 MW and Canelo's refusal to fight him mitigates the importance of the lineal title at MW. There, are you happy?

With that said, I laugh at anyone that claims the lineal title means less than something like the Top Rank belt, I mean the WBO belt. The lineal title indicates that you either won it in a 1 vs. 2 matchup or you are the man that beat the man (that beat the man that beat the man) that did.

You pointed out the fatal flaw with lineal titles, even if you didn't mean to.

They have two tiers, but no distinction between them is given. If you earn a vacant lineal title, you are the no.1 fighter. Vacant lineal titles are spot on - recent examples are Ward beating Froch, Floyd beating Manny etc. It eliminates all dispute. The Crawford scenario is a little strange in that a robbery was involved, but Crawford was still the no.1 fighter at 135.

However, the same 'credit' is often given to non-vacant lineal titles, when they clearly don't necessarily mean as much. Examples here include Stevenson/Dawson, Cotto/Canelo, Sonny Boy Jaro etc. In these scenarios, the title can be passed on from a fighter who isn't the no.1 fighter, to a fighter who also isn't the no.1 fighter. Non-vacant titles can be OK if the lineal champion is still the top fighter. But when he isnt, i think the lineal title should be left vacant when he loses.

We really need to start differentiating between these two scenarios

[Larry the boss]

The average Larry flip flop here

Your first post said Canelo has leverage still, because he remains the GBP-Lineal titlist. Yet this one shows you arguing that it is name value that keeps him relevant, therefore making the titles irrelevant. Which is it?

That Roy scenario is a thorn in your side haha. Its exactly the same scenario that Golovkin is in (WBO title aside) but your bias won't let you admit it. I admire how hard you try though.

We get it, you don't like Golovkin

No biased here at all man...GGG wants ALL the belts at 160 he still has to get the RING title and im sure he wants to be lineal PLUS Canelo is a BIG MONEY FIGHT..thats all i am saying man...trust me they want all of that

[MDPopescu]

I've mentioned this months ago and many of these Golovkin fans didn't even know what lineal is, they thought Golovkin would become lineal if the WBC stripped Canelo.

... really? who thought that?....................

[SthPaw]

The very fact that Canelo will most likely still fight at 155 while claiming to be the lineal king is even more pathetic that trying to force defences of that WBC belt at that weight.

Look through history, has there ever been a lineal champ that surrendered his actual belt, but claimed to still be the lineal champ and STILL enforced a BS weight clause in his defence of said lineage? Probably not. He continues to disrespect the way the sport works if he takes this angle.

Alvarez is a spoiled diva that gets away with murder because he has a powerhouse team standing behind him. He is a manufactured by-product of this era's obsession with the business side of the game. He is no face of the game in my eyes, no matter how many times promo clips try to tell me he is.

[Pigeons]

You pointed out the fatal flaw with lineal titles, even if you didn't mean to.

They have two tiers, but no distinction between them is given. If you earn a vacant lineal title, you are the no.1 fighter. Vacant lineal titles are spot on - recent examples are Ward beating Froch, Floyd beating Manny etc. It eliminates all dispute. The Crawford scenario is a little strange in that a robbery was involved, but Crawford was still the no.1 fighter at 135.

However, the same 'credit' is often given to non-vacant lineal titles, when they clearly don't necessarily mean as much. Examples here include Stevenson/Dawson, Cotto/Canelo, Sonny Boy Jaro etc. In these scenarios, the title can be passed on from a fighter who isn't the no.1 fighter, to a fighter who also isn't the no.1 fighter. Non-vacant titles can be OK if the lineal champion is still the top fighter. But when he isnt, i think the lineal title should be left vacant when he loses.

We really need to start differentiating between these two scenarios

The lineal title does not crown the #1 fighter in the division, it simply crowns the man that beat the man. When a vacancy is filled, yes the lineal champion is the #1 fighter, but after that it just traces a lineage of which man beat the man. Ideally the lineal champion fights the top contenders, but it doesn't happen everytime.

The lineal champion is just a token from the old days when you actually did have one champion per weight class. In those days you could have the same argument, if the sole recognized champion doesn't fight the best contenders, his reign as champion is diluted. Same for lineal today.

One such reign from the old days that TBRB brought up as having been diluted is Gus Lesnovich (sp?) at LHW. The problems remain today. It can only be solved with a boxing league or one boxing promotion dominating the entire sport which is virtually impossible in boxing not only due to the politics but also because boxing is so widespread around the world. It's practically impossible to centralize.

[Xoahr]

Hopkins created the latest lineal title by being the undisputed champ. If Golovkin also becomes undisputed, I think his claim that he's established a new lineal title is more compelling than Canelo's, who didn't fight a MW for it, and didn't defend against a MW to keep it.

Can't really see how you could think otherwise.