Comments Thread For: Daily Bread Mailbag: Mayweather-McGregor, Mosley, Ward

[aboutfkntime]

Pacquiao won the lineal featherweight title by beating Barrera (who had beaten neseem named) in November 2003.
Lineal championships are all that matters. They've been around for a hundred years and are the true measuring stick of any weight class.
ABC belts don't mean ****. I cud set up a sanctioning body and in 10 years it would be a "legit" title. My 2 cents.....

stop being ridiculous.....


FACT: there is no such thing as a lineal " title "

FACT: the lineal " champ " is just the-man-who-beat-the-man, and is often not the best in his division..... as-is the case with Canelo and Stevenson

FACT: there was no title at stake, so Pac did not win a title at featherweight

FACT: the opinion of a magazine, is NOT a title

FACT: attempting to give Pac a courtesy award, because you love him, is lame as fk

[aboutfkntime]

Also, pacquiao is only the third triple crown champion in history behind Bob Fitzsimmons and homicide hank and he did it in nonconsecutive weight classes and in three different decades. An unbelievable achievement.
In my view sugar ray Robinson is in that group too because he whipped lightweight champ Sammy angott twice in non total bouts. And my man h to the greb should be in the discussion too because Dempsey's manager wouldn't let jack near him.

rubbish, they fought under the original eight divisions

and..... that is the kind of wank that needs to be ignored

it comes down to who you beat, with consideration given to when/how..... and nothing more

quoting divisions blah blah, is rubbish..... because the number of divisions you represented is not qualifying criteria for greatness, and many great fighters only ever fought in 1 division

that comes down to body-type, metabolism

multi-divisional champs often rise to the top because they have more opportunities

it comes down to who you beat, with consideration given to when/how..... so Pac gets credit for beating Barrera, but not for being a featherweight champion, because there was no title at stake when they fought

and, saying b,b,b,b,but..... is rubbish..... because FACT: there was no title at stake, so you simply cannot call Pacquiao a featherweight champion

[harry-greb]

stop being ridiculous.....


FACT: there is no such thing as a lineal " title "

FACT: the lineal " champ " is just the-man-who-beat-the-man, and is often not the best in his division..... as-is the case with Canelo and Stevenson

FACT: there was no title at stake, so Pac did not win a title at featherweight

FACT: the opinion of a magazine, is NOT a title

FACT: attempting to give Pac a courtesy award, because you love him, is lame as fk

Lineal title has been around since the marquis of Queensbury rules were introduced. The Ring magazine awarded belts in the 1920's in recognition of the man who beat the man ( the lineal champion ). Jack Dempsey was the first recipient as heavyweight champ.

I get that not every lineal champ is the best in the division and there are anomalies but I think its the best way to go. Canelo is fighting the number 1 ranked contender in a few weeks and that will settle the middleweight debate and hopefully Stevenson and ward get it on to settle the lights heavyweight question.

The ring magazine lineal title was at stake. Barrera had beaten naz who was undoubted number 1 at featherweight. And pacquiao beat Barrera becoming THE man.

Its not just the opinion of a magazine. Reputable historians and record-keeping websites acknowledge pacquiao as lineal featherweight champ.

I'm not giving pacquiao anything. He won the flyweight title in 98
He won the featherweight in 2003
He won the welterweight in 2016
Also while I think Manny is a fine lookin fella, he doesn't give me a chub.

[harry-greb]

rubbish, they fought under the original eight divisions

and..... that is the kind of wank that needs to be ignored

it comes down to who you beat, with consideration given to when/how..... and nothing more

quoting divisions blah blah, is rubbish..... because the number of divisions you represented is not qualifying criteria for greatness, and many great fighters only ever fought in 1 division

that comes down to body-type, metabolism

multi-divisional champs often rise to the top because they have more opportunities

it comes down to who you beat, with consideration given to when/how..... so Pac gets credit for beating Barrera, but not for being a featherweight champion, because there was no title at stake when they fought

and, saying b,b,b,b,but..... is rubbish..... because FACT: there was no title at stake, so you simply cannot call Pacquiao a featherweight champion

I know there was only 8 weight classes back then and if I had my way there would still only be 8. Maybe add cruiserweight to make 9. While pacquiao can't be transported back in time to the original 8, I give him credit for skipping the bantamweight title to win the featherweight title and then skipping the lightweight title to win the welterweight title.

He could only beat who was in his era. Same for any sport. You can only beat who is in your era regardless if its weak or full of killers.

I didn't say the number of divisions you represent qualifies you for greatness. I say the number of original weight classes where you beat THE man absolutely qualifies you for greatness. And pacquiao is an atg. There certainly have been some great single division fighters.

When you talk about multi division champs having more opportunities to rise to the top you must be referring to alphabet champs. The Ricky burns of this world. That's what the alphabet gangsters have done. That's everything I hate about boxing.
Barrera was THE man. How can you not see that?
Sulamain has got to you hasn't he!!

[Reloaded]

CW is a contracted weight, if you have a guy fighting at 160 and to make a fight where he is contracted to fight at 154 meaning its written into the contract then that is a CW for that guy.

A weight class is a range with a top and bottom, so if your 142 that is WW , if you 145 that is a WW as is 147, this applys to every weight class, so according to him if a contracted weight outside of what a fighter fights at happens to fall on the upper limit of a weight class its then not a CW, bulldust !

[aboutfkntime]

Lineal title has been around since the marquis of Queensbury rules were introduced. The Ring magazine awarded belts in the 1920's in recognition of the man who beat the man ( the lineal champion ). Jack Dempsey was the first recipient as heavyweight champ.

I get that not every lineal champ is the best in the division and there are anomalies but I think its the best way to go. Canelo is fighting the number 1 ranked contender in a few weeks and that will settle the middleweight debate and hopefully Stevenson and ward get it on to settle the lights heavyweight question.

The ring magazine lineal title was at stake. Barrera had beaten naz who was undoubted number 1 at featherweight. And pacquiao beat Barrera becoming THE man.

Its not just the opinion of a magazine. Reputable historians and record-keeping websites acknowledge pacquiao as lineal featherweight champ.

I'm not giving pacquiao anything. He won the flyweight title in 98
He won the featherweight in 2003
He won the welterweight in 2016
Also while I think Manny is a fine lookin fella, he doesn't give me a chub.

nah, that is rubbish

" lineal "..... is a fanboy title, nothing more

this is from wiki.....

"The concept of a lineal champion was developed by boxing fans dissatisfied by the tendency of each of the various sanctioning bodies (WBC, WBA, IBF, etc.) to recognize different champions, and in particular to strip a champion of his title for refusing to fight its top-ranked contender. Prior to the 1970s, this rarely happened"

there are plenty of problems with ranking by lineage.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lineal_championship

ranking by lineage is second-rate casual-fan stuff

it only really gained momentum in the 1980's with the advent of the third and fourth official sanctioning organisations

back in the 1920's we did not need a lineal champ, because we had a real champ

a lineal " champ "..... is what you need when you don't have a real champ

if there was only one official sanctioning body, the word lineal would never have been used when discussing boxing

forget all that nonsense, boxing is much simpler than that

WHO you beat, with consideration given to when/how

nothing more

good historians, and knowledgeable fans know who the best guy was at most points in time

" oh, but we need clarity ".....

hard luck, you cannot have clarity with 4 sanctioning bodies..... and paint-by-numbers, math-based, systems like lineage simply do not work..... casual fans will need to pay more attention, learn the nuances of the game, and focus on fights that are based around divisional supremacy, if they want clarity

Pac did not win a featherweight title

TheRing does not sanction or mandate, they are just a magazine

a magazine award is not a title

helluva fighter though

[aboutfkntime]

I know there was only 8 weight classes back then and if I had my way there would still only be 8. Maybe add cruiserweight to make 9. While pacquiao can't be transported back in time to the original 8, I give him credit for skipping the bantamweight title to win the featherweight title and then skipping the lightweight title to win the welterweight title.

you are giving him credit for all sorts of things

including winning a title at featherweight

I think Liam Neeson should have won an Oscar for taken

He could only beat who was in his era. Same for any sport. You can only beat who is in your era regardless if its weak or full of killers.

I didn't say the number of divisions you represent qualifies you for greatness. I say the number of original weight classes where you beat THE man absolutely qualifies you for greatness. And pacquiao is an atg. There certainly have been some great single division fighters.

When you talk about multi division champs having more opportunities to rise to the top you must be referring to alphabet champs. The Ricky burns of this world. That's what the alphabet gangsters have done. That's everything I hate about boxing.
Barrera was THE man. How can you not see that?
Sulamain has got to you hasn't he!!

stop making stuff up as you go along

WHO you beat, with consideration given to when/how

regardless as to what silly title the fans placed on your opponent on any given day

apply that same logic to everyone, and you have your criteria

that way we can compare across era's

without observers being mislead by all of the modern stuff that popped up..... like 17 weight divisions, same-day weigh-ins, and multiple sanctioning organisations..... and without observers being mislead by all of the modern BULLSHHT that popped up..... like ESPY awards, magazine awards, and lineage

[harry-greb]

nah, that is rubbish

" lineal "..... is a fanboy title, nothing more

this is from wiki.....

"The concept of a lineal champion was developed by boxing fans dissatisfied by the tendency of each of the various sanctioning bodies (WBC, WBA, IBF, etc.) to recognize different champions, and in particular to strip a champion of his title for refusing to fight its top-ranked contender. Prior to the 1970s, this rarely happened"

there are plenty of problems with ranking by lineage.....
Wikipedia


ranking by lineage is second-rate casual-fan stuff

it only really gained momentum in the 1980's with the advent of the third and fourth official sanctioning organisations

back in the 1920's we did not need a lineal champ, because we had a real champ

a lineal " champ "..... is what you need when you don't have a real champ

if there was only one official sanctioning body, the word lineal would never have been used when discussing boxing

forget all that nonsense, boxing is much simpler than that

WHO you beat, with consideration given to when/how

nothing more

good historians, and knowledgeable fans know who the best guy was at most points in time

" oh, but we need clarity ".....

hard luck, you cannot have clarity with 4 sanctioning bodies..... and paint-by-numbers, math-based, systems like lineage simply do not work..... casual fans will need to pay more attention, learn the nuances of the game, and focus on fights that are based around divisional supremacy, if they want clarity

Pac did not win a featherweight title

TheRing does not sanction or mandate, they are just a magazine

a magazine award is not a title

helluva fighter though

You say lineal is fanboy stuff yet you quote Wikipedia!!!! C'mon son!!! 1-0 to me.

I don't think you know what the word lineal means. In the 1920's all we had were lineal champions. One champion per division. The rest were contenders. No super duper champions. No emeritus champions, no interim champions, and certainly not 4 champions per division. One champion. And if he was beaten, then the victor becomes lineal champion (the man who beat the man who beat the). Is there 4 Superbowl champs? Is there 4 Olympic 100 metre champs? Is there 4 world cup champions?

Boxing as in all sports is about becoming THE world champion in your chosen sport.

If you're the best in your division you will become THE champ. "Good historians" would acknowledge that.

Why do you give so much reverence to sanctioning gangsters? They are only in it for themselves. They don't give a **** about the sport as witnessed by that truffle pig sulamain parading that monstrosity at the may Mac weigh in.

You can't bribe, buy, or steal a lineal title. No sanctioning cowboys demanding their 3%.

Ring mag has far more legitimacy than alphabets.they've been around nearly 100 years. Go and check Wikipedia too find out how long the gangsters have been around.

Mate, I'm not a casual fan. Love the sport and love the history of boxing.

What would you call the fighter who has divisional supremacy??? Would you by any chance call him THE LINEAL CHAMP?????

You're right. Pacquiao didn't win a title at featherweight. He won the lineal title.

No further questions, your honour. I'm like tom cruise in a few good men. You're jack Nicholson and I have u tied up in knots!!

[aboutfkntime]

You say lineal is fanboy stuff yet you quote Wikipedia!!!! C'mon son!!! 1-0 to me.

I don't think you know what the word lineal means. In the 1920's all we had were lineal champions. One champion per division. The rest were contenders. No super duper champions. No emeritus champions, no interim champions, and certainly not 4 champions per division. One champion. And if he was beaten, then the victor becomes lineal champion (the man who beat the man who beat the). Is there 4 Superbowl champs? Is there 4 Olympic 100 metre champs? Is there 4 world cup champions?

Boxing as in all sports is about becoming THE world champion in your chosen sport.

If you're the best in your division you will become THE champ. "Good historians" would acknowledge that.

Why do you give so much reverence to sanctioning gangsters? They are only in it for themselves. They don't give a **** about the sport as witnessed by that truffle pig sulamain parading that monstrosity at the may Mac weigh in.

You can't bribe, buy, or steal a lineal title. No sanctioning cowboys demanding their 3%.

Ring mag has far more legitimacy than alphabets.they've been around nearly 100 years. Go and check Wikipedia too find out how long the gangsters have been around.

Mate, I'm not a casual fan. Love the sport and love the history of boxing.

What would you call the fighter who has divisional supremacy??? Would you by any chance call him THE LINEAL CHAMP?????

You're right. Pacquiao didn't win a title at featherweight. He won the lineal title.

No further questions, your honour. I'm like tom cruise in a few good men. You're jack Nicholson and I have u tied up in knots!!

I agree with the bold


what you don't seem to understand is.....

The Ring does not mandate, and The Ring does not sanction.....

they are just a magazine

like this.....





also.....

the word " lineal " refers to ancestry, it is not a boxing term

it was only really applied to boxing in the 1980's, following the advent of the 3rd/4th official sanctioning organisations

Pac should - and will - be given credit for beating Barrera

but he did not win a world title at featherweight

just saying

btw, how many lineal " titles " did Willie Pep win..... ?

Pep did not win a lineal title, because there was no such thing

Pep > Pac

stop being ridiculous

[aboutfkntime]

You can't bribe, buy, or steal a lineal title. No sanctioning cowboys demanding their 3%.

you Stevenson fans need to get a grip