BoxRec

fergusg wrote:

Tarkus wrote:I won! I won! I won!

I don't know what you won or even if you actually did win anything, but if it makes you happy, then good for you.

Purse Bid Shakedown wrote:Same with Hatton, consensus champ at 140. But youre dealing with an irrational troll here

Manny Pacquiao’s victories over Marco Antonio Barrera and Ricky Hatton were impressive and greatly enhance his legacy, but it’s not my fault they weren’t for any official world titles. It’s reality of life that none of us can do anything about.

Purse Bid Shakedown wrote:Im sure Pac will be devastated to find some lowly troll only counts 5 of his titles.

Lineal titles are well recognized by the public, some only count those and not the alphabet straps.

So I’m a troll because my opinion differs from yours? So I guess I should be intimidated by your insults to the point that I feel compelled to retract everything I’ve said?

Apart from a select few hard-core fans, nobody knows who’s in possession of one of the lineal world titles. Most of us mere mortals don’t even know who bestows these championships or what criteria they use (i.e. Shannon Briggs gained his title via the mechanical rules of genealogy rather than being the best in his division).

fergusg wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:

fergusg wrote:In my honest opinion, the Ring Magazine and the mythical lineal world titles aren’t recognised by...the boxing public

But they are. More so in many cases than the ABC orgs, which are incredibly corrupt.

Back to OP, you clearly have formed your opinion and then asked for others. You can't use your own personal criteria to argue with those who don't agree with your criteria.

If people want to proclaim mythical belts as legitimate world titles, simply to support their favourite fighters’ accomplishments, that’s their prerogative. I cannot do anything about it.

I don’t feel that boxing needs to have more world champions in the sport. The lineal champion is usually crowned via the mechanical rules of genealogy (i.e. Shannon Briggs).

The Ring Magazine world title is decided upon by journalists and the policy change in 2012 corrupted the prestige of this belt (i.e. you cannot find out who’s the best if the #2 contender faces the #5 contender for a vacant Ring Magazine belt – therefore, a top five contender could win a Ring Magazine belt).

I steadfastly refuse to recognise world titles that were either won with catch-weight stipulations, or the dodgy crowing criteria of the Lineal and Ring Magazine mythical belts.

fergusg wrote:

Purse Bid Shakedown wrote:Theres nothing dodgy about the lineal criteria, its as straightforward as it gets.

What happens when a Lineal champion refuses to face quality opposition or a title becomes vacant… everything becomes subjective?

For example: Michael Spinks defeated Larry Holmes, so was he still the Lineal world champion whilst he remained inactive (or at least didn’t fight top-rated opponents) when Mike Tyson was unifying the other world titles in the heavyweight division?

What about Shannon Briggs?

After all, Andre Ward currently holds both the Lineal and Ring Magazine world titles, but it has been almost two years since he has beaten a legitimate world-class opponent, a severely weight-drained version of Chad Dawson (who himself was natural light heavyweight who was KO’d in training by Edison Miranda). It has been almost three years since he defeated a top five ranked super-middleweight (Carl Froch). I know he’s a phenomenal fighter, but why on earth should we recognise a champion who currently doesn’t compete against the very best in his division?

Simply put: you cannot pick-and-choose when you prefer to proclaim someone as winning a world championship, such as the Lineal champion, when the rules governing their titleholders are occasionally absurd.

fergusg wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:

fergusg wrote:In my honest opinion, the Ring Magazine and the mythical lineal world titles aren’t recognised by...the boxing public

But they are. More so in many cases than the ABC orgs, which are incredibly corrupt.

Back to OP, you clearly have formed your opinion and then asked for others. You can't use your own personal criteria to argue with those who don't agree with your criteria.

If people want to proclaim mythical belts as legitimate world titles, simply to support their favourite fighters’ accomplishments, that’s their prerogative. I cannot do anything about it.

I steadfastly refuse to recognise world titles that were either won with catch-weight stipulations, or the dodgy crowing criteria of the Lineal and Ring Magazine mythical belts.

fergusg wrote:

Purse Bid Shakedown wrote:

fergusg wrote: What happens when a Lineal champion refuses to face quality opposition or a title becomes vacant… everything becomes subjective?

For example: Michael Spinks defeated Larry Holmes, so was he still the Lineal world champion whilst he remained inactive (or at least didn’t fight top-rated opponents) when Mike Tyson was unifying the other world titles in the heavyweight division?

What about Shannon Briggs?

After all, Andre Ward currently holds both the Lineal and Ring Magazine world titles, but it has been almost two years since he has beaten a legitimate world-class opponent, a severely weight-drained version of Chad Dawson (who himself was natural light heavyweight who was KO’d in training by Edison Miranda). It has been almost three years since he defeated a top five ranked super-middleweight (Carl Froch). I know he’s a phenomenal fighter, but why on earth should we recognise a champion who currently doesn’t compete against the very best in his division?

Simply put: you cannot pick-and-choose when you prefer to proclaim someone as winning a world championship, such as the Lineal champion, when the rules governing their titleholders are occasionally absurd.

All of those complaints hold for alphabet belts, and worse. Fortunately none pertain to Pacs lineal belts, since the champs he beat were unquestionable.

Hey so did Sergio stop being the MW champ when stripped for not fighting Zbik?

I’m not going to cherry pick when I choose to recognise a certain version of the world championship purely to support the legacy of my favourite fighter.

I believe that there are far too many issues with the criteria used to allocate Ring Magazine and Lineal world champions, so I completely disregard their value.

Simply put: the Ring Magazine and Lineal world titles aren’t legitimate championships, even when they may be occasionally bestowed upon deserving recipients.

Put it this way, Wladimir Klitschko currently holds the IBO world title, which is reasonable, because he’s the best fighter in the heavyweight division. Does this mean that Zaurbek Baysangurov is the best 154lb-er on the planet, because he holds the light-middleweight version of the belt?

fergusg wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:And if you want to pretend your opinion is the only right one, simply to support your favorite fighters accomplishments, that's your prerogative.

What do you mean? I like Mayweather & Pacquiao in equal measure.

fergusg wrote:

Purse Bid Shakedown wrote:So you never told me, was Sergio no longer champ after getting stripped of his alphabet trinket?

Off-topic. Create a thread and I'll think about expressing an opinion.

fergusg wrote:

Purse Bid Shakedown wrote:Uhh stunningly dumb analogy. Zaur would be #1 if he was lineal, not for holding the IBO belt

You’re missing the point… one worthy titleholder of a particular belt doesn’t wholly validate the legitimacy of an organisation that bestowed it, especially when it's hard to comprehend the justification of previous or current champions (i.e. the Lineal Champion = Michael Spinks; the undisputed WBC, WBA & IBF champion Mike Tyson).