Dariusz Michalczewski, Lineal/Linear Champ...Not Quite!

[Wolfman91]

the answer:

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/fw033099.htm

I'm a massive Roy Jones fan and consider him to be one of the best pound for pound in the last decade. I feel if he did fight DM he would have won hands down, it's just a shame the fight never materialized. I do however believe DM was the linear champion and therefore I think that now means that that linear title now belongs to Zolt Erdei even though everyone recognises Antonio Tarver as the top man in the division.

[barry]

wolfman...I guess you missed where I stated, earlier in this exact thread, that I use to think that DM was the linear/lineal champ, but actual facts proved me wrong, so instead of staying in the wrong, I corrected what I was wrong about...

As has been showed time and again, DM came so very close to being the lineal/linear champion, but he did not quite make it...he held the WBA and IBF, WBO doesn't count. Now had the WBC been vacant for a couple of years or so, then Virgil Hill could have had claim because of no WBC champ, but the title was never vacant more than a couple of months.

Actually the reason that I felt that DM was lineal/linear was because the CBZ felt that way, but it's incorrect, unless nowadays we are considering someone the lineal/linear champion whenever someone wins two of the three belts...but I don't think that's the case.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

Well I thought their first fight was very good, the second not quite so but respect to them both for fighting eachother like real champions should... for me Tarver is the first 'undisputed' 175 champ since Micheal Spinks... doesn't matter if all the damn bodies strip him, he's proved himself the best... he beat Jones in their first fight too though he didn't get the verdict...

i disagree, I thought jones won the first fight. what made you think tarver won?

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

so, if the WBO belt is "worthless"

well look at the history of it and you will find it is kind of a worhless belt. Just take a look at the champions of WBO in the past, there have been a lot of 3rd rate guys WBO champions.


I think the clear MAN at 175 was roy jones, he had all 3 belts. he unified the title against reggie johnson and mike mccallum, DM simply had one belt which had a history of being useless. I also believe DM ducked roy jones



barry wrote

but anyone that knows anything knows in order to become the one, undisputed champion of a division then said fighter must unify the three main titles, sorry but the WBO has never counted and it still doesn't,

I agree with barry

[silkov]

Well I thought their first fight was very good, the second not quite so but respect to them both for fighting eachother like real champions should... for me Tarver is the first 'undisputed' 175 champ since Micheal Spinks... doesn't matter if all the damn bodies strip him, he's proved himself the best... he beat Jones in their first fight too though he didn't get the verdict...

i disagree, I thought jones won the first fight. what made you think tarver won?

Because he dominated Jones and controlled the pace of the fight... many people agree with me that Jones should have lost that fight.

[Brett Paul Dunbar]

As has been showed time and again, DM came so very close to being the lineal/linear champion, but he did not quite make it...he held the WBA and IBF, WBO doesn't count. Now had the WBC been vacant for a couple of years or so, then Virgil Hill could have had claim because of no WBC champ, but the title was never vacant more than a couple of months.

I, and a lot of other people think you are wrong in this, when Tiozzo vacated he broke the WBC lineage, so, for a time, the WBC didn't count towards re-establishing the linear title. That the WBC failed to bestow it's belt on the winner of Hill-Maske was the WBC doing the wrong thing, it doesn't make the Hill-Maske fight not for the vacant world championship. You are giving them far too much respect, by allowing the arbritary decision of the WBC determine who you recognise as champion.

[Petu v.d. Pajm]

[quote="Brett Paul Dunbar"][quote="barry"]As has been showed time and again, DM came so very close to being the lineal/linear champion, but he did not quite make it...he held the WBA and IBF, WBO doesn't count. Now had the WBC been vacant for a couple of years or so, then Virgil Hill could have had claim because of no WBC champ, but the title was never vacant more than a couple of months.
[/quote]

I, and a lot of other people think you are wrong in this, when Tiozzo vacated he broke the WBC lineage, so, for a time, the WBC didn't count towards re-establishing the linear title. That the WBC failed to bestow it's belt on the winner of Hill-Maske was the WBC doing the wrong thing, it doesn't make the Hill-Maske fight not for the vacant world championship. You are giving them far too much respect, by allowing the arbritary decision of the WBC determine who you recognise as champion.[/quote]

Absolutely so, Hill-Maske fight was between the ONLY 2 recognised champions as WBC lineage was broken at that point and WBO didn't count. Thus Hill became the WORLD CHAMPION and new linear line was established... YOU could have even said that Maske WAS already a champion as IBF had a long lineage after Spinks went to heavies : Kacar-Czyz-Williams-Maske while Hearns both WBA & WBC lineages had been broken...

Roy Jones Light heavyweight title was only lined from a) an INTERIM title fight vs. Mike McCallum (interim can be read bullshit) and b) vacancy-fillers William Guthrie vs. Darin Allen & Lou DelValle vs. Eddy Smulders. If ABCs would care about true champs, none of those lineages would have ever started an thus RJJ can not claim ever holding any valid light heavy belt.

[Autobarn]

great points, Petu and Brett... Maske was considered the best of the light heavies, as he had a quality reign having beaten PC Williams, Hembrick, Egerton Markus, Rocchi, Barkley. When Hill upset Maske, he proved himself The Man, WBC title or no. DM definitely beat the man, in a one sided fight.

Brockton, I disagree with dismissing the WBO belt by default. Earlier I brought up the question of whether Brewster was less of a champ than Byrd / so Zaragoza was more worthy a s/bantam champ than Barrera? there are plenty of examples can be used. If the man who holds the belt is quality, he deserves reassessment, IMO. Taking into account what they did when they had the belt/who they took it from isn't a crime.

Also, the man Dariusz beat for his WBO title compares well with the other solid titlists who'd been around at 175: Leeonzer Barber was more active than the always injured PC Williams, hit a hell of a lot harder than Maske, and wasn't hometown protected like Hill. In fact, he was the youngest, freshest, hardest hitting guy in the division at the time.

In his fight with Dariusz, LB boxed superbly, hit like a mule and had the air of a man who had no little experience, punching crisply & turning up the heat at the end of the rounds. Showe dhe could really slip shots, too. His only real problem was that through his career, he was too economical with his shots...LB was no Bob Foster, but still it took a very good fighter to beat him!

So DM came through two very tough/respectable tests for all his titles. Jones most definitely didn't. He was never even required to go through a beast of a champion to get all the marbles. He was given a free bus pass to light heavy ville. Jones would've eaten DM alive from 2002 onward, but I don't know if he could've beaten him from '97-2000 time

[barry]

>>>So DM came through two very tough/respectable tests for all his titles. Jones most definitely didn't<<<

An old Virgil Hill and Leeonzer Barber...real tough tests...I tell you, good thing Jones never faced the likes of a Hill...wait a minute...he did...and from what I recall he looked a hell of a lot better than DM did!

[Autobarn]

>>>So DM came through two very tough/respectable tests for all his titles. Jones most definitely didn't<<<

An old Virgil Hill and Leeonzer Barber...real tough tests...I tell you, good thing Jones never faced the likes of a Hill...wait a minute...he did...and from what I recall he looked a hell of a lot better than DM did!

Well, Barber was a tough test, in my view. If he wasn't it'd have been a shit, one sided fight against Barber.

Virgil Hill was getting on a bit, but if he wasn't still capable he'd have been jabbed into a torpor by Maske, as most others were being. He'd come off the finest win of his career. Dariusz looked great against him, with the measured, controlled pressure. He knew Hill was going to jab jab jab, so he launched right hands over the jab. Don't have to score a one punch KO to look great.

Jones also looked great, with the flashy moves and the unexpected one-punch KO, but Jones definitely had the frayed leftovers. After 12 gruelling rounds, and a year's inactivity, he wasn't exactly the same guy.

[Petu v.d. Pajm]

RJJ may have beaten better fighters during his "titlist reign", but his titles definitely had much less lagit background than DM's. Thus RJJ had very solid credentials as a perennial No.1 contender, but that's all he was a light heavy.

To be truthful, while RJJ could easily have been termed as a best fighter in the world in 3 different weight classes at time or another (M, SM, LH), he never earned a recognition as champ in any of them.

His middleweight claim resulted from a vacancy-filler with then-untested Bernard Hopkins and he made only one defence so there was no strengthening of the claim via longevity. Middleweight title picture had been frequently muddled by division jumps at the time, but the strongest out of weak claims was WBC's (Julian Jackson to Gerald McClellan)

RJJ beat who was arguably the best super middleweight around in James Toney, but none of his 5 defences was against a fighter who had ever held any title version (Eric Lucas would do, but years later). Thus 4 major belts (yes, 4 for a division so recently created) were all pretty equal in status. WBA title had longest continuity (1st champ of division, Chong-Pal Park did jump from IBF to WBA) and IBF had the most qualified vacancy-filler in Lindell Holmas vs. Frank Tate (Watson-Eubank 2 and Galvano-Matteoni were jokes as fights for vacant super middleweight title) so Jones version of title was a strong one, but still inadequate for being declared as THE CHAMPION.

And in light heavyweights he never wanted to challenge the man who was already established as a champ.

[barry]

I always hear all of the excuses of how Hopkins was untested, or Toney was so much out of shape, but none of it has any real merit. Hopkins untested at 27, or 28 years old...are you kidding...Toney showed no signs of his being out of shape in his bout with Jones, he just showed that he was in over his head, like so many other fighters.

People can make all the excuses they want and they can try to coat and cover the fact that DM failed to unify the titles all they want and they can try to say Jones is not worthy of his accomplishments, but thats all empty-air because he has the accomplishments...and as I stated a couple of times Jones did exactly the same thing that other fighters who have unified did...he did the exact same thing that Hopkins, Spinks, Tzsyu and Wright did and he deserves the exact same kind of recognition. It's not Jones' fault that instead of trying for the third world title DM chose instead to drop the other belts...and DM did drop them, which people can make all the excuses for that they want as well, but the facts of the siituation tell a different story!

You have the right to believe whatever you want just like I do, but the fact is, my belief in the situation is backed by facts that can be written down and very little is my opinion, what is my opinion doesn't count for anything except what I believe, but facts are facts and new rules can not be made just because a fighter is not liked, especially when that fighter earned it in the ring!

[Autobarn]

RJJ may have beaten better fighters during his "titlist reign", but his titles definitely had much less lagit background than DM's. Thus RJJ had very solid credentials as a perennial No.1 contender, but that's all he was a light heavy.

To be truthful, while RJJ could easily have been termed as a best fighter in the world in 3 different weight classes at time or another (M, SM, LH), he never earned a recognition as champ in any of them.

His middleweight claim resulted from a vacancy-filler with then-untested Bernard Hopkins and he made only one defence so there was no strengthening of the claim via longevity. Middleweight title picture had been frequently muddled by division jumps at the time, but the strongest out of weak claims was WBC's (Julian Jackson to Gerald McClellan)

RJJ beat who was arguably the best super middleweight around in James Toney, but none of his 5 defences was against a fighter who had ever held any title version (Eric Lucas would do, but years later). Thus 4 major belts (yes, 4 for a division so recently created) were all pretty equal in status. WBA title had longest continuity (1st champ of division, Chong-Pal Park did jump from IBF to WBA) and IBF had the most qualified vacancy-filler in Lindell Holmas vs. Frank Tate (Watson-Eubank 2 and Galvano-Matteoni were jokes as fights for vacant super middleweight title) so Jones version of title was a strong one, but still inadequate for being declared as THE CHAMPION.

And in light heavyweights he never wanted to challenge the man who was already established as a champ.

i see what you're saying, but I wouldn't call Eubank-Watson II a joke. The politics behind it were dodgy - the top contenders pushed aside for Chris and Mike - but the fight was fought with awesome skill and courage. (shame that Watson had to pay for it so dearly). Far more convincing in actual combat than Mike Nunn's lucky win(s) over Victor Cordoba, or Baek's slide toward the C Tiozzo loss...


in my view, things are so fragmented we can't always use criteria such as Lineal or Undisputed to assess a champ. I mean Spinks was lineal hvywt champ but Tyson destroyed him...in fact Spinks was in a very tenuous position, as he was lucky to beat Holmes II...I prefer to take into acount quality of opposition, talent, how so and so's performances measure up to his peers - many different contexts to consider.

That's why i like Dariusz' title reign. His wins over Barber, Hill, Rocchi II, and Griffin were very satisfactory, IMO. and defenses vs Thadzi, Piper, Prince, Girard are underrated enough to merit reconsideration. Of course, a lot of the rest is dreck, but it doesn't cancel out the good stuff.

[barry]

>>>in my view, things are so fragmented we can't always use criteria such as Lineal or Undisputed to assess a champ.<<<

I can agree with that and if that is the case and it falls down to who fought the better competition, then Jones wins hands down. Jones and DM never fought, but Jones did fight all the other top light heavyweights, which is something DM most certainly did not do!

[Autobarn]

I always hear all of the excuses of how Hopkins was untested, or Toney was so much out of shape, but none of it has any real merit. Hopkins untested at 27, or 28 years old...are you kidding...Toney showed no signs of his being out of shape in his bout with Jones, he just showed that he was in over his head, like so many other fighters.

People can make all the excuses they want and they can try to coat and cover the fact that DM failed to unify the titles all they want and they can try to say Jones is not worthy of his accomplishments, but thats all empty-air because he has the accomplishments...and as I stated a couple of times Jones did exactly the same thing that other fighters who have unified did...he did the exact same thing that Hopkins, Spinks, Tzsyu and Wright did and he deserves the exact same kind of recognition. It's not Jones' fault that instead of trying for the third world title DM chose instead to drop the other belts...and DM did drop them, which people can make all the excuses for that they want as well, but the facts of the siituation tell a different story!

You have the right to believe whatever you want just like I do, but the fact is, my belief in the situation is backed by facts that can be written down and very little is my opinion, what is my opinion doesn't count for anything except what I believe, but facts are facts and new rules can not be made just because a fighter is not liked, especially when that fighter earned it in the ring!

Believe it or not, Hopkins was feasting on some real stiffs before he got to Jones, and didn't have much of a style back then. he was criticised badly for taking on overmatched guys. certainly not the complete fighter who got G Johnson, Tito, K Holmes etc. Toney was very drained, but that was his own fault. Does mar Roy's wins. Like i said b4, I prefer Roy's wins over Merqui Sosa, Griffin II, Harding, Woods.

Dariusz was lineal champ. You don't have to be fully unified to be lineal, as with the Mike Spinks-Tyson example. Roy was undisputed, with the three belts, but he wasn't lineal as he hadn't beat the man who beat the man... So we have this very strange situation that divides many ppl fiercely, and gives plenty of room for interpretation.

I do feel that dariusz is worthy of reevaluation/ open to revisionist theory.

likewise, I feel that Jones has been given the benefit of the doubt too much. I mean, at middle/ sm he often had massive 20-lb weight advantages over the opponent. he admitted he was 180 vs the super skinny Hopkins...if he was around when weigh ins were the day of the fight, he wouldn't be as effective. and my major issue with him, is that he didn't face a real physical light heavy until he was 35/6

[barry]

>>>is that he didn't face a real physical light heavy until he was 35/6<<<

He didn't have to. Why go in and take punishment that is not necessary? Sure, I would have liked to see him take more risks than he did, but he was never going to be a Diego Corrales go for broke type of fighter, but he did take a pretty good beating from Glen Johnson for nine rounds until he was knocked cold...for someone who supposedly has no heart, he never quit in the ring and went out on his shield twice, which is more than can be said for a few other supposed all time greats of recent memory!

[Autobarn]

>>>in my view, things are so fragmented we can't always use criteria such as Lineal or Undisputed to assess a champ.<<<

I can agree with that and if that is the case and it falls down to who fought the better competition, then Jones wins hands down. Jones and DM never fought, but Jones did fight all the other top light heavyweights, which is something DM most certainly did not do!

I think their opponents matched quite well.

I feel Dariusz' best opponents are a bit better than Jones' best at 175. I like the once beaten Hill, Rocchi, Barber, a bit better than Harding, Woods, Reggie Johnson.

I also prefer DM's Piper, Prince, Thadzi, Girard , to RJ's Telesco, Otis Grant and Glen Kelly - if we look at the more middling guys.

But I think that Jones worst opponents were better than Dariusz' worst. Roy had Frazier, while Dariusz had a few too many of these type, between the Barber and Hill fights '95-97.

There's also the common foes, the Hall, Gonzales, and Harmon fights. Roy was undoubtedly more impressive, but DM stopped them earlier. Jones was still formidable & had the infuriating style, while DM had slowed down badly & his aggression was making him walk onto a few too many (also, I don't think Gonzales deserved to beat DM).

These guys do have a fascinating symmetry. Check out DM's two fights with Rocchi. getting beaten up, wins by DQ. Wins rematch with brutal, brilliant display...Jones, a tad frustrated, hits Griffin while down and gets DQ'd, wins the rematch with a ferocious effort...

[Autobarn]

I mean, ppl assumed Jones would beat Jirov cos Toney did. when Toney had always feasted on pressure guys by staying inside with them. when really i don't think RJ fancied the job. i mean he could've had the chance to be a 6 weight world champ...

[Autobarn]

>>>is that he didn't face a real physical light heavy until he was 35/6<<<

He didn't have to. Why go in and take punishment that is not necessary? Sure, I would have liked to see him take more risks than he did, but he was never going to be a Diego Corrales go for broke type of fighter, but he did take a pretty good beating from Glen Johnson for nine rounds until he was knocked cold...for someone who supposedly has no heart, he never quit in the ring and went out on his shield twice, which is more than can be said for a few other supposed all time greats of recent memory!

I wouldn't have minded seeing his chin tested. also, he only fought one guy who could back him up & impose himself, and that was the totally out of his depth Bryant Brannon. that was one of those HBO time wasters, can't remember if it was merch or Lamp, one of them asked RJ when he was going to KO the guy, so he'd know which train to get home

that's a reason why I would've salivated over Jones vs either Michalczewski when DM was at his best, or Vassiliy Jirov when he considered fighting as a cruiser. I think a lot of ppl assumed he'd win, when we don't really know. I mean a lot of ppl assumed terry norris was going to wipe out every jr/middle, starch JC Chavez (easy) AND outclass James Toney (impossible) and generally be the most perfect guy in the world...

But what happened, Simon brown stopped him, as J Jackson already had. I'm grateful that Norris got 'found out'. still a superb fighter, but we knew he wasn't unbeatable, especially if he faced a great puncher. my Q mark over Roy was, what'd happen vs a bigger pressure guy with proven class? Problem was, unlike Norris, we didn't find out until it was too late.

[Petu v.d. Pajm]

[i]i see what you're saying, but I wouldn't call Eubank-Watson II a joke. The politics behind it were dodgy - the top contenders pushed aside for Chris and Mike - but the fight was fought with awesome skill and courage. (shame that Watson had to pay for it so dearly).[/i]

Fight was a tragic classic, but pitting two fighters without any previous fights in division for a vacant title does not give any legitimacy for the title.
[/quote]

[Autobarn]

i see what you're saying, but I wouldn't call Eubank-Watson II a joke. The politics behind it were dodgy - the top contenders pushed aside for Chris and Mike - but the fight was fought with awesome skill and courage. (shame that Watson had to pay for it so dearly).

Fight was a tragic classic, but pitting two fighters without any previous fights in division for a vacant title does not give any legitimacy for the title.

[/quote]

who were the top contenders, I can't remember...

[Wolfman91]

I think the simple fact of this is we had two very good Light Heavyweight Champs - DM and RJJ.

DM was liner champion and RJJ was unified champion. Both fighters deserve respect for their achievements in the division and like I said earlier it’s a shame they never fought each other. Although I think RJJ would have come out victorious!

Am I correct in saying that at the time the WBC wouldn’t recognise the WBO belt and therefore if the WBO title holder felt that he should keep his WBO belt once winning the WBC crown he would be stripped of the WBC version. This happened to Naz if I remember rightly)

[Autobarn]

I think the simple fact of this is we had two very good Light Heavyweight Champs - DM and RJJ.

DM was liner champion and RJJ was unified champion. Both fighters deserve respect for their achievements in the division and like I said earlier it’s a shame they never fought each other. Although I think RJJ would have come out victorious!

Am I correct in saying that at the time the WBC wouldn’t recognise the WBO belt and therefore if the WBO title holder felt that he should keep his WBO belt once winning the WBC crown he would be stripped of the WBC version. This happened to Naz if I remember rightly)

that's how DM lost his WBA title, something to do with wearing both belts in public. don't know about the WBC

[barry]

>>>Both fighters deserve respect for their achievements in the division and like I said earlier it’s a shame they never fought each other.<<<

I completely agree with that!

[BoxBuzz]

works for me.