BoxRec

Perseus wrote:

ikorolev wrote:There are scenarios when lineal championship is worth less than ABC belts. Let's take a look at MW, for example. If shot Martinez fought his mandatory, Rubio, then Rubio would have become a lineal champ. Then, he could have lost to juiced Heiland. Nice lineal champs we would have had !

Lineal doesn't mean "best", it's just the whole "man who beat the man" thing. A line that can be traced and nothing more.

I think the middleweight lineage might have the longest continuity at the moment??

How did Kellerman say it?
"Cotto beat Martinez who beat Pavlik who beat Taylor who beat Hopkins who beat everybody"
That line goes back to 2001.

I agree, but some people are getting confused considering Cotto to be the best middleweight when he is possibly not even in top 5.

fergusg wrote:Just out of interest... and I'm not actually expressing a personal opinion here, but... if people no longer regard the "lineal champion" as the best in their respective division (as they're simply the "man" who beat the "man")... does this mean that having only one world champion per weight class would be pointless?

It wouldn't if that world champion fights best opposition. The problem is that modern lineal champions cherry pick their opposition. Look at majority of Sergio's opponents: Dzinziruk, Macklin, Barker, Murray ... They were definitely far from the best available opposition.

Anyone who argues that linearity is clear and objective is a fool in the first place. Some of these divisions have such murky origins for their "linear" claims that it looks frankly laughable and falls apart under any serious analysis. Light Heavyweight is a great example.

fergusg wrote:Just out of interest... and I'm not actually expressing a personal opinion here, but... if people no longer regard the "lineal champion" as the best in their respective division (as they're simply the "man" who beat the "man")... does this mean that having only one world champion per weight class would be pointless?

I don't think it would be pointless but I'm not sure how much it would help the sport either.
If unification bouts happened more frequently nobody would care how many belts are out there.

fergusg wrote:Just out of interest... and I'm not actually expressing a personal opinion here, but... if people no longer regard the "lineal champion" as the best in their respective division (as they're simply the "man" who beat the "man")... does this mean that having only one world champion per weight class would be pointless?

No, because if there were only one world champion I think it would still reduce cherry picking and aversion. A fighter couldn't dodge a strong champion, win a belt from a weaker champion, and thereafter embark on a series of weak defenses while claiming they're the true champion and some other title holder isn't. This would diminish the rewards a fighter could reap by avoiding the most competitive paths, while creating a talent pool that isn't fractured by fighters pursuing a specific ABC title and therefore not facing good opponents who are pursuing a different title route (e.g. IBF vs WBO). Having only one champion would also mean that there wouldn't be the same type of political barriers to credible title bouts, possibly the most relevant being reluctance from certain sanctioning bodies to endorse unification bouts.

crusader wrote: No, because if there were only one world champion I think it would still reduce cherry picking and aversion. A fighter couldn't dodge a strong champion, win a belt from a weaker champion, and thereafter embark on a series of weak defenses while claiming they're the true champion and some other title holder isn't. This would diminish the rewards a fighter could reap by avoiding the most competitive paths, while creating a talent pool that isn't fractured by fighters pursuing a specific ABC title and therefore not facing good opponents who are pursuing a different title route (e.g. IBF vs WBO). Having only one champion would also mean that there wouldn't be the same type of political barriers to credible title bouts, possibly the most relevant being reluctance from certain sanctioning bodies to endorse unification bouts.

The UFC has a virtual monopoly on the sport of mixed martial arts and, in theory, only one champion per weight class whom they have enormous power over. The last 3 years have been indicative of the harsh reality that even with those conditions in play, a combat sport can backslide in popularity dramatically over all the same political nonsense boxing has in play now.

I certainly wouldn't expect it to eliminate every problem, and perhaps new ones would be created, but on balance I think it would benefit boxing from a competitive perspective.

Perseus wrote:

ikorolev wrote:There are scenarios when lineal championship is worth less than ABC belts. Let's take a look at MW, for example. If shot Martinez fought his mandatory, Rubio, then Rubio would have become a lineal champ. Then, he could have lost to juiced Heiland. Nice lineal champs we would have had !

Lineal doesn't mean "best", it's just the whole "man who beat the man" thing. A line that can be traced and nothing more.

I think the middleweight lineage might have the longest continuity at the moment??

How did Kellerman say it?
"Cotto beat Martinez who beat Pavlik who beat Taylor who beat Hopkins who beat everybody"
That line goes back to 2001.

The line in the Flyweight division dates back way further, I think to the 1970's with Canto.

Yey.... A very reasonable move.
Inactivity should put your stocks down no matter how good you are.

Asian Boxing wrote:

Perseus wrote:

ikorolev wrote:There are scenarios when lineal championship is worth less than ABC belts. Let's take a look at MW, for example. If shot Martinez fought his mandatory, Rubio, then Rubio would have become a lineal champ. Then, he could have lost to juiced Heiland. Nice lineal champs we would have had !

Lineal doesn't mean "best", it's just the whole "man who beat the man" thing. A line that can be traced and nothing more.

I think the middleweight lineage might have the longest continuity at the moment??

How did Kellerman say it?
"Cotto beat Martinez who beat Pavlik who beat Taylor who beat Hopkins who beat everybody"
That line goes back to 2001.

The line in the Flyweight division dates back way further, I think to the 1970's with Canto.

Flyweight lineage tracing back that far is actually impressive imo.
Over a four decade period it seems like the lineage would have been broken by boxers making a permanent move up to junior bantam or bantam.
Looks like the cyberboxing zone needs to be updated. It should be showing Gonzalez as linear flyweight champ now.