Why do we recognize any champion who isn’t lineal?

[ShaneMosleySr]

Who are the lineal champions that didn’t defend their title against anyone of note?

People will say Michalczewski. That only happened because the WBA and IBF stripped him for no reason and Roy Jones refused to fight him because he got those titles in ridicolous fashion. If that didn’t happen, Jones and Michalczewski would have fought.

The other recent example is Adonis Stevenson. He held an alphabet title along with his lineal title. Those mandatories did absolutely nothing in terms of making him fight anyone.

So the mandatories and oversight your praising does nothing but hurt the sport.

If you have other examples, I will gladly show you how wrong they are.

It's not necessarily about who they win it off man, the major complaint is about who they defend it against. The 'lineal' title by definition doesn't have any mandatory requirements - much like these Bullchit franchise championships - and no oversight. You reckon it's a good idea that we just blindly crown the man who beat the man regardless of whether the 'man' was past it and regardless of whether he then goes on to defend against nobody in particular for the next 6 or 7 years?

That might be good enough for you, man, but I think I'd rather go for a slightly more nuanced or at least flexible system.

[Boksfan]

Because Lineal is an imaginery title made up by fans, it simply doesn't exist, just like P4P lists, it's irrelevant just made for fun.

[ShaneMosleySr]

When someone retires as champion, the next lineal champion isn’t crowned until he cleans out the division.

because boxing isnt lineal

[Citizen Koba]

Who are the lineal champions that didn’t defend their title against anyone of note?

People will say Michalczewski. That only happened because the WBA and IBF stripped him for no reason and Roy Jones refused to fight him because he got those titles in ridicolous fashion. If that didn’t happen, Jones and Michalczewski would have fought.

The other recent example is Adonis Stevenson. He held an alphabet title along with his lineal title. Those mandatories did absolutely nothing in terms of making him fight anyone.

So the mandatories and oversight your praising does nothing but hurt the sport.

If you have other examples, I will gladly show you how wrong they are.

We may be talking at cross purposes here, man. You seem to be labouring under the impression that I'm in some way arguing in favour of the current group of clowns who run boxing with their BS titles.


I'm not.

I'm merely saying that making the lineal title paramount is not the not the change we need and funnily enough you've just provided me with several examples yourself of why I should probably stick with my opinion.

For me the champion should represent the best guy in a division and if he fails to live up to expectations or fails to defend against worthy challengers then he should forego the right to be called champion. The idea of lineage is just way to open to abuse, man, and far too likely to stray from that ideal.

[Marchegiano]

I’m sure the title was questionable in the 1700s and 1800s. With racism in the early 1900s, there were champions that would only fight other white men, although I must say I doubt the ABC titles would have helped fix racism LOL.

So I’m going to go with lineal being the best choice from about 1937 to 2019, LMFAO.

What does Corbett, Maher, Fitzs, and Sharkey go to do with racism? I went with details for that example because it's pretty much the cleanest. There's no criminal element, there is no racism or xenophobia, it's just an example of how powerful the lineal used to be and how poorly that worked.

1937? You mean after sanctioning bodies were well into effect?

Yeah, those are great champs my man. They are sanctioned champs, it's what got them their greatness. Kinda my point here.

As long as the bodies control boxing and yer just picking yer favorite out of the body belts holders then ****, yeah, you can't go wrong.

If you mean to go back to the traditions when **** like champion's prerogative ruled boxing then hells no. That **** was the worst. Man who beat the man doesn't even begin to describe 1722-1913.

Without bodies who ranks 1 and 2?

Without bodies who forces mandos?

Without bodies who writes the rules?

in all regards, the champion himself.

[ShaneMosleySr]

If by sanctioning bodies, you mean the NYSAC and the NBA, I’m all for it. But those titles coincided with the lineal championship 99.9% of the time.

Without bodies, who ranks one and two? Objective journalists at tbrb and formerly the ring magazine.

Who writes the rules? The state athletic commissions.

What does Corbett, Maher, Fitzs, and Sharkey go to do with racism? I went with details for that example because it's pretty much the cleanest. There's no criminal element, there is no racism or xenophobia, it's just an example of how powerful the lineal used to be and how poorly that worked.

1937? You mean after sanctioning bodies were well into effect?

Yeah, those are great champs my man. They are sanctioned champs, it's what got them their greatness. Kinda my point here.

As long as the bodies control boxing and yer just picking yer favorite out of the body belts holders then ****, yeah, you can't go wrong.

If you mean to go back to the traditions when **** like champion's prerogative ruled boxing then hells no. That **** was the worst. Man who beat the man doesn't even begin to describe 1722-1913.

Without bodies who ranks 1 and 2?

Without bodies who forces mandos?

Without bodies who writes the rules?

in all regards, the champion himself.

[ShaneMosleySr]

It’s not imaginary and made up.

The ABC titles are. They mean nothing.

Because Lineal is an imaginery title made up by fans, it simply doesn't exist, just like P4P lists, it's irrelevant just made for fun.

[ShaneMosleySr]

So your idea is the champion should just be whoever you think is the best?

That doesn’t make any sense.

We may be talking at cross purposes here, man. You seem to be labouring under the impression that I'm in some way arguing in favour of the current group of clowns who run boxing with their BS titles.


I'm not.

I'm merely saying that making the lineal title paramount is not the not the change we need and funnily enough you've just provided me with several examples yourself of why I should probably stick with my opinion.

For me the champion should represent the best guy in a division and if he fails to live up to expectations or fails to defend against worthy challengers then he should forego the right to be called champion. The idea of lineage is just way to open to abuse, man, and far too likely to stray from that ideal.

[Citizen Koba]

So your idea is the champion should just be whoever you think is the best?

That doesn’t make any sense.

Naw... you'd have to have some kinda system for it, of course. Quite what I ain't sure... but that's why in my first reply I suggested voting on the Championship polls. There's worse ways of doing that ish than by popular acclaim I reckon.

I'd say yeah... there's an element of the guy who beat the guy, but that shouldn't be slavishly adhered to and any fight between the next two or three most highly regarded should allow for the potential for a change if the incumbent champ hasn't been fighting opponents of sufficient calibre.

Point is, that discussion's kinda moot right now, cos we can't change what the sanction orgs do and which champs are officially recognised anyway, but we can come together as a community of boxing enthusiasts and say which champions we choose to recognise - which is kinda what the purpose of the polls is.

[Marchegiano]

If by sanctioning bodies, you mean the NYSAC and the NBA, I’m all for it. But those titles coincided with the lineal championship 99.9% of the time.

Without bodies, who ranks one and two? Objective journalists at tbrb and formerly the ring magazine.

Who writes the rules? The state athletic commissions.

I wouldn't call them objective at all , but, doesn't really matter because that's how we got here anyway.



So no one who could possibly enforce ranking or mandos and the exact en****** that made sanctioning bodies in the first place? You don't think journalists in 1830 had lists? You don't think the commissions who made money controlling boxing had a reason to give up control?



The commissions made the bodies because they could not handle the workload as boxing globalized.

BBBofC=NSC=WBC

EBU=IBU=WBC

NYSAC = WBC

And then, the WBC makes the 10 point must system. English, European, an American rules used to be separate. The commissions tried to handle the global scene, could not, and formed sanctioning bodies to do it for them.

This line of thinking is why we've ended up with so many bodies in the first place. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck bud.