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

:bears:

 

You could be champ and not be the best in the division, and that's where the issue gets confusing. That's when I need to refer to a technical adviser

 

Of course being linear ( or lineal, I don't care ) isn't the identification of being the world champion. It's just an asset to have, just like having a IBF or WBA belt. The only solution in boxing is not too look at who's the real champ ( too many champion going around for that ) but at who's the number 1 guy in the division, most of the time, he's the guy's who should be considered the champ.

 

Exactly, to a word. Was Hasim Rahman ever the best Heavyweight in the world? God, he was an awful fighter. I used to watch him when I was a teenager as his career was unfolding, & cringe. I thought I could beat the guy, he was wretched.

However, he knocked out Lewis. Sly, I have not read all your musings on this topic, so forgive me if I misunderstand, but it seems from your early posts you are stating you have to be the best fighter in your division to be champion, moreso than linear titleist. This is where upsets occur (in all sports, which is what I was driving at with my analogy). If the best team in NFL gets done over in the Super Bowl by underdogs, are the winners on the day not champs? This is why the linear championship is still very dear to my heart when assessing who rules a division, especially in an age of belts, belts, belts. It is the purest & least-diluted trace for who really is the champ. If the guy holding it is not the best, he will be found out sooner or later --- but that doesn't invalidate his claim in the first place.

Now, that said, I do not consider the linear title to always be the best measure. In the case of Foreman, for instance, he was stripped of all recognition for refusing fights with the big names. He was stripped, & that counts. Yes, no one had bested him following Moorer, however avoiding the real challenges should (but here's a big distinction --- doesn't always) invalidate your title claim (if it did, Sly, you'd have some conceding to do on the subject of Mayweather at 147).

How many of you consider it correct in the record books that Jack Johnson was champ, 1908-15? All of you, I'm guessing --- yet Johnson actively & even admittedly ducked his three foremost deserving contenders. There's a case he should've been stripped, but since he wasn't, we acknowledge his championship status, criticise it for what its' worth, & move on. We don't invalidate his claim, or shorten his reign.

Is it tricky? Yes, it can be. Is it as tricky as we often make out? I don't believe so.

 

Don't let the fact that a lot of pretenders are now in the pool cheapen the original lineage. That ain't right.

 

well, to me, you need the possibility of stripping a title for it to be worthy. Without it, it's just too easy to freeze out high risk low reward fighters. That's why I don't care much for linear title and usually hold the big 3 in higher regard.

 

I really don't see the Lineal distinction as being important at all. In all honesty, what place does it have in the current system where titles are effectively meaningless?

In truth, I don't understand what purpose it serves.

 

As long as you guys don't compare current WBC/WBA/IBF champions to past legit champions, I guess I don't really care.

 

This is exactly what I've been saying.

 

So for example if Lewis beat everyone except the lineal champ for promoter related reasons, you're saying he couldn't be compared to great champs of the past?