Why Do We Continue to Recognize the Lineal Championship When....

[Eff Pandas]

I think it sounds important to people still. And it used to be what happened in boxing before the 4 title structure we know now. You either had to beat the man to be the man or you had to be among the top 2 & beat the other top 2 guy to be the man if the man retired. Thats a thing people wanna think can still exist I think.

Its more or less bs with the 4 titles these days. I think George Foreman was the biggest destroyer of what the "lineal title" meant for me. There's definitely more examples & maybe better ones, but Foreman killed the concept for me.

[ShoulderRoll]

Being lineal champ is important because it says you beat the man who beat the man etc. And that you're not just another Golovkin who got his belts from chumps.

It's true that some boxers make a mockery of the lineage but we should make an effort to fix the sport so that lineal is special again...not start ignoring lineal altogether.

[Real King Kong]

It's 100% true. I'll list the lineal champs and you can stack the WBA/WBC champs next to them. Let's see which list has the more weak champs on it.

I'll take the ring champ thanks. If you trace the lineage back to when there was one champ...you'll find some weak champs once the sanctioning bodies got involved. In theory to be lineal champ, you had to beat the man...but when the man who beat the man became the wba champ and didn't face the best competition, he gets eclipsed.

[techliam]

The thing about lineal titles is, people assume they mean something. They mean nothing. They are practically an academic exercise amongst 'historians' who ironically use them with face value alone without critique, one of the least academic things I can think of.

Its up to the person to justify using them in an argument, and on a lower (closer to the core) level, the fighters resume has to justify the lineal championship. Theres zero reason why different standards are used from other titles.

Its a messy system of assumptions. On one level, we have to assume the lineage is constant and exact. From that, the term 'man who beat the man, who beat the man' can be thrown about wildy to no end. (See shoulderrolls post above). Canelo, apparently, gains the prestige of Hopkins legitimising the title, by beating Cotto at 155. Secondly, the lineal champion must be at the top. We arent allowed to question this, resume stops mattering when you have the invisible title. This is the only thing preventing TBRB being a fantastic set of rankings. The reality is Martinez stopped being the man around the time he lost to Murray, or came into the Cotto fight with one leg. But because he held the untangible title, he was the man.. (See the circular logic, yet?). We also seem to assume that winning a vacant lineal title is a same achievement as winning a non-vacant one. In a vacant scenario, 1 vs 2, theres no dispute. In a non vacant scenario, it could literally be unranked vs unranked, yet we dont seem to differentiate between them.

Lineal systems are a joke. At the very least, ABC titles have the ability to tweak when obvious flukes or mistakes happen..

[muslimer12]

Thats fine but lets act like Lineal doesnt matter when it has always mattered.....The dude in your avy had no belts other then the IBO at the end of his reign and you and his fans yelled Lineal

It started to not matter with the Stevenson Kovalev situation, before GGG

[Chrismart]

It's not black and white, too many grey areas.

Being lineal means you 'beat the guy, who beat the guy'. But 'beating the guy, who beat the guy' doesn't make you the best in the division.
Lineal simply is, what it is.

It's a nice title to have, but should be taken with a pinch of salt when 'top dog' conversation is being discussed.

[Robbie Barrett]

It's not valid

I guess Pacquiao wasn't a 8 division title holder then.

[Robbie Barrett]

To be a lineal champ you either beat the champ or was the winner in a #1 vs #2 fight. It's more valid than any of those bull**** org titles.

[Pigeons]

No such thing as perfect in boxing.

The lineal title is very important in two scenarios:
1) When you establish the lineage because it means you won a #1 vs. #2 matchup.
2) When you beat the lineal champion because it means you "beat the man who beat the man...".

The lineal title's value obviously gets deluded when the lineal champion doesn't fight the best competition, especially when there is one obvious #1 contender and the lineal champion doesn't make that fight happen (examples: Zsolt Erdei vs. Roy Jones Jr, Adonis Stevenson vs. Sergey Kovalev, and Canelo Alvarez vs. Gennady Golovkin).

[The D3vil]

We have to be objective about this. The lineal title has often been awarded to guys that have often been labeled the best fighters in their respective divisions. Will anyone deny that for the better part of a decade, fighters like Hopkins and Wlad were the best guys in their division?

Would anyone deny that Fury is currently the best heavyweight, until proven otherwise?

Would anyone deny that the recent fight between Bradley and Pacquiao was between the two best at 147?

Would anyone deny that Martinez as lineal champ, was the man?

However, their are exceptions, for example: Stevenson when he beat dawson was rightfully the best at 175 but with Kovalev beating Pascal and Hopkins, that landscape has changed.

I'm not arguing Tyson Fury's the best at ****.

He beat a distracted Klitschko. He hasn't done anything else that has impressed me.

I'm not ready to say he's better than Klitchsko or Luis Ortiz until he beats both convincingly