How great are you when the fighter moving up gives you lose or your hardest fight?

[Citizen Koba]

I don't need to. There's no Lineal World Title. Just like there's no P4P World Title. Boxrec is also wrong by saying "the lineal championship of a weight class is a world championship title held initially by an undisputed champion" There's many lineages where nobody was undisputed.

Of course being that there's no lineal title, boxrec can make whatever rules they want up.

Keep Googling.

Whilst I've no desire to get involved in your little to and fro about how many titles Pacquiao held (I'm with you on this one, incidentally. Technically the language you used seemed to me only to indicate titles awarded by the major sanction bodies - but you're arguing sematics and interpretation on a boxing forum which is the very essence of pointlessness) I am curious about this comment (bolded). I think Boxrec has it right that the originator of a lineage should be an undisputed champion and anyway as long as they apply this ruling consistently to their own rankings, they're basically allowed to use whatever definition they choose. Myself I'm also cool with an additional alternative which allows the consensus #1 and #2 to square off to create a new lineage, but then that opens a whole new can of worms cos it's not often you can even get agreement on the top two, so...

I was just curious to know which examples you know of Boxrec contravening it's own definitions and and having a lineage that didn't start with an undisputed champ.?

[Robbie Barrett]

Whilst I've no desire to get involved in your little to and fro about how many titles Pacquiao held (I'm with you on this one, incidentally. Technically the language you used seemed to me only to indicate titles awarded by the major sanction bodies - but you're arguing sematics and interpretation on a boxing forum which is the very essence of pointlessness) I am curious about this comment (bolded). I think Boxrec has it right the the originator of a lineage should be an undisputed champion and anyway as long as they apply this ruling consistently to their own rankings, they're basically allowed to use whatever definition they choose. Myself I'm also cool with the alternative which allows the consensus #1 and #2 to square off to create a new lineage, but then that opens a whole new can of worms cos it's not often you can even get agreement on the top two, so...

I was just curious to know which examples there are of Boxrec contravening it's own definitions and and having a lineage that didn't start with an undisputed champ.?

Nearly all modern ones.

Example - Pacquiao at 130 became lineal by defeating JMM, he was never undisputed.

[Citizen Koba]

Nearly all modern ones.

Example - Pacquiao at 130 became lineal by defeating JMM, he was never undisputed.

Cool. Yeah, basically Boxrec doesn't really define it properly - or at least they do, but then go on to contract themselves.

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Lineal_championship

Pac - JMM is one of the examples of #1 and #2 squaring off which I'm cool with, but doesn't fit with the definition of the lineage starting with an undisputed champ (which would have to be few and far between in the modern era).

Incidentally thought you might like this:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2...yweather-fight

[Tom Cruise]

Marvin Hagler was a perfectly sized MW who would have had to move to LHW if he wanted to move up.

He dominated his era of MW's, as well as beating the great smaller guys who wanted to come up to Middle. With the exception of a contested SRL loss.

Such a bs reason to criticise a fighter.

[Tom Cruise]

Hilarious watching Larry get y'all in your feelings.

All anyone can do is attack him about Floyd

and his assessment of Marvin Haglers ATG career...

[T-1000]

Hilarious watching Larry get y'all in your feelings.

All anyone can do is attack him about Floyd

In theory people could make fun about him being poor or even about his boarderline ******ed son, but I think most have too much class.

[Tom Cruise]

[Tom Cruise]

Ignoring the fact the subtext of this thread was about GG vs Canelo, where there was no significant size difference on either side, smaller fighters have had success against bigger men from beginnings of the sport right up to the present day.

Yes big men have an advantage in size, but smaller guys often have the advantage in movement and speed. It's the fighter who can force their advantages on their opponent, and negate their opponents strengths who will win.

[Shape up]

Ignoring the fact the subtext of this thread was about GG vs Canelo, where there was no significant size difference on either side, smaller fighters have had success against bigger men from beginnings of the sport right up to the present day.

Yes big men have an advantage in size, but smaller guys often have the advantage in movement and speed. It's the fighter who can force their advantages on their opponent, and negate their opponents strengths who will win.

It's not the dog in the fight, it's the fight in the dog, a very old saying

[Shape up]

Boxrec is a boxing authority now?

So now are you saying YOU are more of a boxing authority than boxrec, you have more information in your pea brain than boxrec has obtained over many years, IS THAT YOUR CLAIM