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

[IronDanHamza]

maybe because it made Pac 5 lineal titlist while your floyd only got 4 and then since someone's better than floyd now,


genius floyd fan started this thread to unrecognized lineal title.

And?

What difference does it make if he's 0 time Lineal or 5 time Lineal if the Lineage doesn't matter?

Is English not your first language or are you just ******?

[gamesworn]

Well firstly, Pacquaio and Bradley weren't the universal #1 and #2.

Secondly, the point of my post clearly went straight over your head which is baffling to me considering it's quite clear as to the point of the post.

Then who is your number 1 and 2?

[IronDanHamza]

Then who is your number 1 and 2?

I'd have Pacquaio #1 despite the fact he's coming off a loss.

#2 is wide open.

The WW divison itself is wide open there's no universal #1 and #2.

[gamesworn]

The lineage has historical significance. Fewer undeserving fighters hold the lineage than any other world title in the sport. But that doesn't mean no undeserving fighters do.

Some fighters cheapen the lineage. That multiple lineages are being cheapened right now is a reflection of how things are in the sport. We should acknowledge that, not ignore it.

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).

Great Post. agree with both

I will unrecognize the ABC title first before the Lineal Championship.

Lineal still hold much more weight than WBC, IBF, WBO, WBA paper belts.

[gamesworn]

I'd have Pacquaio #1 despite the fact he's coming off a loss.

#2 is wide open.

The WW divison itself is wide open there's no universal #1 and #2.

I'm pretty sure most of the ranking I saw before Pac-Bradley 3. Pacquiao and Bradley was considered number 1 and 2 of the division. Only the ring ratings have different set rankings. And we all know how ****ty ring ratings right now because of GBP owning it.

Bradley's only lost in WW was against Pacquiao (The number 1 of the division).

Heck Floyd Won his Ring Title against Guerrero. And now you are trying to discredit Pacquiao's Lineal Title against Bradley

[Robbie Barrett]

I'm pretty sure most of the ranking I saw before Pac-Bradley 3. Pacquiao and Bradley was considered number 1 and 2 of the division. Only the ring ratings have different set rankings. And we all know how ****ty ring ratings right now because of GBP owning it.

Bradley's only lost in WW was against Pacquiao (The number 1 of the division).

Heck Floyd Won his Ring Title against Guerrero. And now you are trying to discredit Pacquiao's Lineal Title against Bradley

If you look at Bradley's WW record the only ranked WW he beat was old JMM who people say isn't really a WW.

[gamesworn]

If you look at Bradley's WW record the only ranked WW he beat was old JMM who people say isn't really a WW.

Before the fight, JMM last win was against Pacquiao and after that, Bradley defeated him. That is much better than any other WW have done so far.
Yes they are small WW but still it happens in WW limit. You cannot just ignore that

Bradley had a competitive fights with Pacquiao and more proven than any other welterweights.

[IronDanHamza]

I'm pretty sure most of the ranking I saw before Pac-Bradley 3. Pacquiao and Bradley was considered number 1 and 2 of the division. Only the ring ratings have different set rankings. And we all know how ****ty ring ratings right now because of GBP owning it.

Bradley's only lost in WW was against Pacquiao (The number 1 of the division).

Heck Floyd Won his Ring Title against Guerrero. And now you are trying to discredit Pacquiao's Lineal Title against Bradley

It's irrelevant, they weren't and aren't the universal #1 and #2, the divison is wide open. Welterweight is one of the last divisons in boxing with a universal #1 and #2.

What's Floyd got to do with anything? Is it a gag reflex for people to bring up Floyd for no apparent reason?

Floyd vs Guererro having The Ring title on the line was a joke. But it's irrelevant anyway because that fight wasn't for the Lineage either. And even it is was it still has nothing to do with this scenario.

[Robbie Barrett]

Before the fight, JMM last win was against Pacquiao and after that, Bradley defeated him. That is much better than any other WW have done so far.
Yes they are small WW but still it happens in WW limit. You cannot just ignore that

Bradley had a competitive fights with Pacquiao and more proven than any other welterweights.

No he isn't more proven, JMM's only WW win was against Pacquiao who people also claim isn't really a WW. Bradley WW record has no wins against top WW on it.

[gamesworn]

It's irrelevant, they weren't and aren't the universal #1 and #2, the divison is wide open. Welterweight is one of the last divisons in boxing with a universal #1 and #2.

What Floyd got to do with anything? Is it a gag reflex for people to bring up Floyd for no apparent reason?

Floyd vs Guererro having The Ring title on the line was a joke. But it's irrelevant anyway because that fight wasn't for the Lineage either. And even it is was it still has nothing to do with this scenario.

Now tell me why Bradley was not considered as number 2 in the division. Thurman, Porter and Kell needs to fight each other to prove themselves. At least Bradley prove it by handling himself well against the best of the last generation.