Is "Lineal" (Linear) the only real identification of a world Champion?

Boxing elitists like to suggest that the "Lineal" Title is the only true title.

In most cases this is true, but I don't think it should be the rule.

Was Shannon Briggs really THE Heavyweight "Champion" of the world when he beat Foreman...with guys like Lewis, Tyson and Holyfield merely contenders for his "throne"?

Get the Fuck Out of here with that bullshit!!

The Champion IMO, is about who is the "consensus" top man (with a title) in the division. in most cases this would be the Lineal champion but not in all.

Let me give you a hypothetical in order to explain my point:


Let's say Carlos Baldomir, after he beat Judah, refused to fight Mayweather, Cotto, Margarito, Mosley and just defended his title against a bunch of unknown Argentine bums....staying "champion" until today.

In the meantime let's say, for example that he was rightly STRIPPED of the belts and Pacquiao then unified them against Mayweather, Cotto, Shane and Margarito. Baldomir still undefeated since he got the lineal championship but Pacquiao being the one who's cleaned out the division and seen by the "consensus" as the best...plus having all the belts.

In that scenario who would YOU say is the Welterweight "Champion"?


Pacquiao or Baldomir?

Your answer to this question must be consistent with your poll choice or you are full of shit.

 

I am mellowing on this subject. At heavyweight, yes. No question in my mind. And in some REALLY clear cases, like middleweight for example, you have to follow the lineage. But with all the weight jumping I'll concede it's tough to follow at this point.

 

And Baldomir would be the champ in my books. I wouldn't like it, but that's just the way it is. Boxing is 100 years of champions ducking the best fighters.

 

See....I must respectfully disagree...but I respect your consistency.

Baldomir would not be the champ in my books. Not at all. In that scenario Pacquiao all the way.

 

Um....I don't really have an abstract opinion on this. It's really a case by case type of deal. Suffice to say I don't have much regard for titles as anything more than a devise for illustrating who THE MAN is anyway and in instances when they fail to serve that function for no good directly boxing related reason I ignore them, whether alphabet or linear.

Pac-Barrera for instance was for THE WORLD title. Briggs-Foreman was not.

 

word.

 

Here comes mikE in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.......

 

Titles are like paper money. They have no intrinsic value beyond what people collectively agree to give them.

 

They were both for the world title. Both fortunately and unfortunately.

 

precisely. hence why I think "Consensus" champion makes more sense than either "lineal" or belts per se.

 

AgREED. Thats why, whatever anyone thinks of the quality of the publication these days (and it is poor), I put far more stock in being 'Ring Champion' than any other kind, since thats basically what that amounts to.

 

Everythings for some sort of 'world title' these days. There's probably a commission somewhere right now, poised to wrap a belt round the winner of this imminently commencing debate between me & mikE :warning:

 

lineal belts don't mean much these days in a historical sense. seems like most significant fights happen at catchweights anyhow.

 

I hope The Ring does the right thing and releases Silver, Interim and Fedecentro titles

 

Sorry but...sorryass Shannon Briggs beating an ancient Foreman, who ducked everyone with a live pulse and yet LOST that fight with Schultz but was allowed to keep his belts, by controversial decision was no Heavyweight champion. NOT AT ALL. In that case the lineal title was invalidated.

 

No no, they were both for THE world title. Like, Foreman-Briggs was for the same title that Foreman and Ali fought for.

 

In my books, that's just the way it is. No different than Patterson ducking Liston for all those years. Or Dempsey refusing to fight black fighters.

 

I hear what you're saying..and they are decent examples...but I don't think they are anywhere near extreme as the Briggs-Foreman "championship" fiasco...and it's the EXTREME cases that I'm referring to when I say that we can't use this in all cases. Dempsey and Patterson were still fighting top contenders and still recognized as the top man.

 

As I said, the titles are only worth what we & the public value them as, so as soon as there were two world titles the intrinsic value of the 'linear' title became diluted. Because while Patterson could duck Liston and have the public still recognise him as THE CHAMP since there wasn't another totem for their esteem as soon as that stopped being the case all bets were off. It goes back to fighters having to compete for recognition again.

And Foreman didnt have it. The world and his dog knew Lewis, Tyson, Holyfield et al were better than him. His currency had inflated to shit. He was wheal barrowing banknotes to buy hamburgers.::

 

Foreman beat Moorer with one punch after losing every second of every round prior to that and Moorer was one of the most vulnerable heavweight champions in history. Moorer had been bounced up and down by Bert Cooper and Holyfield only lost to him because Evander was off that night.

But yes...Foreman WAS the champion on that night. After that though, Foreman capitalized on his LUCK by ducking Tyson, Holyfield, Lewis, Bowe and whoever else would have been heavily favoured to beat him and instead chose to fight bums. No way should he have been still seen as champion the night he "lost" to Briggs...much less Briggs.

 

I deliberately made this a public poll and RAMONZA I'm calling you out!!! ::

This topic was inspired by you for UNFLINCHINGLY suggesting that Tyson wasn't the youngest champion.

While I do see your pointwe mustn't forget that Spinks had beaten old man Holmes controversially, wanted no part of Tyson and was defending against the likes of Cooney and Tangstad. In the meantime Tyson was cleaning up. Now in this case..I can concede the "champion" point in Spinks' favour but you seemed so resolute in your position on the lineal title that I'm surprised you voted the way you did on this topic.

 

Guess we shouldnt have Cup Finals/Grand Finals/Super Bowls.

We should all just agree who the best team are, and then declare it without the final game.

 

Thats the advantage of multiple titles. We don't have to acknowledge guys who take liberties like that as champ anymore like we did with Patterson. We just turn our backs and take away the recognition the title ultimately rests on - there are other guys to give it to, just as legitimately.

In that sense a wee bit of alphabet soup's quite nourishing. (2 would surely be better than 4 bowls).

 

But YOU voted "not in every case". So what are you saying now?

 

Just have to agree to disagree here. The part in bold is irrelevant to me. To each his own. I just prefer it my way. There's only one world, baby.

 

Not analogous. Sorry.

 

Im saying your poll and your post are not consistent with one another. Not as I see them.

 

Irrelevant to whether or not Foreman or Mooer were champion yes, in that I agree that Foreman WAS the champion as well as Moorer before him.

But relevant when you consider the period that followed that fight when Foreman ducked everyone else.

 

How so?

 

Boxing is much more like tennis these days. There are several titles, big and small, you can win but none of them alone makes you the best. Some titles (like the lineal) are respected, while others are not. However the #1 aka the champion is decided by 'public' and its based on who beats most of the other top players. There is no points system in boxing but the principal is the same