BoxRec

ikorolev wrote:Lineal champions are result of fans' imagination. There are no official rules on how lineage is initiated and passed, for example if you can win a MW lineage by fighting at 155 limit and avoiding the best opposition. There are cases of disputed or multiple lineages. Read this:

http://www.arcaneknowledge.org/sports/linealprob.htm

Again, the claim was that ggg is 'the only champion' at MW. Golovkin cant even claim an imaginary lineal championship.
How is this difficult to grasp?

ikorolev wrote:Lineal champions are result of fans' imagination. There are no official rules on how lineage is initiated and passed, for example if you can win a MW lineage by fighting at 155 limit and avoiding the best opposition. There are cases of disputed or multiple lineages. Read this:

http://www.arcaneknowledge.org/sports/linealprob.htm

so the whole debate is in vain then ?

so there is no way for 3g and his management to force fights with saunders and canelo, other than than 3g fighting 8 times a year to "earn" titles shot with all big 4 or just pay them big time to face him ?
this sport is gonna kill it self. these guys and their management are just a disgrace to spirits of sports. if your not willing to face the best, how on earth do they have the nerve to call them selves champions ?
They aint fighters, they´re bitches. (unless they make a public statement, that they dare not fight him because theyre afraid of losing )

Taki... wrote: Again, the claim was that ggg is 'the only champion' at MW. Golovkin cant even claim an imaginary lineal championship.
How is this difficult to grasp?

when canelo said he couldn't face ggg at 160 because he isn't a true middleweight
even though he signed a contract to defend immediately against ggg in order to
get the cotto fight (after cotto threatened to vacate rather than defend against
the mandatory), and then paid ggg to delay the mandatory defense, canelo became
the lineal and undisputed BITCH of the division!!
lineal my ass

Are you being deliberately obtuse?
Well let me edify you anyway.

Nope

Firstly, the only factual case that can be made for a single champion at MW is that for Alvarez.
As I've pointed out previously there are in fact only two ways of becoming the 'true champion' -- your choice of words not mine.
Undisputed and lineal.
Neither of those ways is either speculative or arbitrary. They are -- sans a disputed result -- definitive.

Whether there are only two ways of becoming 'true champion' or whatever term is used depends largely on how the terms are defined, and I see no good reason why having a case for being the true or only legitimate champion of a division requires one to be either the lineal champion or undisputed champion.

Now you can wax poetic about 'conceptions' and 'limiting vagueness' all you want, but every example you try to give is either the aforementioned arbitrary or speculative.

There could be quite logical reasons for choosing number of title defenses as the criterion. Lineage itself is pretty much useless after one fight, as someone could win a lineal title then just keep the title hostage by facing clubfighters once a year. If the focus is on number of title defenses made, it puts pressure on top fighters to be active and consistently face ranked foes if they want to be champion. Moreover, political and business impediments that prevent deserving fighters like GGG from getting a shot at the lineal champion wouldn't be as significant in this case, as contenders can gain ground on the champ even if the latter keeps evading them. So the title would serve a broad, instrumental function while the champ would be an embodiment of regular, fairly high-level activity.

There are also computer-based rankings available today that don't depend on lineage or number of successful title defenses. Once the initial values are systematically set these produce objective results, so perhaps they could be used to determine the champs as well (maybe we could come up with averages of their rankings too). Incidentally, Alvarez would be MW champion if we employed BoxRec's rankings, but it wouldn't be based on his lineal champion status, and in certain divisions (e.g. LHW) the champion wouldn't be the current lineal title holder.

Of course there are flaws to these methods too, but the same can be said about going by lineage. I don't actually embrace any of them right now and I think that people should generally place less weight on who is champion and who isn't.

Factual is concrete. Did Alvarez beat the man who beat the man,etc? Yes. It's a matter of fact.

Right, so the title defense method is concrete too.

Whoever beats Alvarez within the MW limit can lay claim to the lineal middleweight championship. As to whether that person is better than Golovkin? Well we're back to speculation again aren't we?

No shitt they can lay claim to the lineal title; that's not the same thing as the lineal champion being the only legitimate champion in the division.

As for the speculation, doesn't that apply to the Jones-Calzaghe example you mentioned earlier? If so, why did you mention it?

Logical, reasoned, factual. Consider yourself edified

I'm sorry Taki but it seems that I'll have to look elsewhere for that. And by the way I don't have much of a problem with people referring to the lineal champ as THE champion, as long as they don't act like that makes a lineal champ any more credible at the weight (and a non-lineal champ any less credible at the weight) than their quality of opponent and performance merit. Unfortunately, it seems to me like many people place too much weight on lineage, and would see a lineal champion as being more credible than a non-lineal champion in the same division even if the latter had a much deeper resume and consistently performed better.

Butterbean wrote:

ikorolev wrote:Lineal champions are result of fans' imagination. There are no official rules on how lineage is initiated and passed, for example if you can win a MW lineage by fighting at 155 limit and avoiding the best opposition. There are cases of disputed or multiple lineages. Read this:

http://www.arcaneknowledge.org/sports/linealprob.htm

so the whole debate is in vain then ?

so there is no way for 3g and his management to force fights with saunders and canelo, other than than 3g fighting 8 times a year to "earn" titles shot with all big 4 or just pay them big time to face him ?
this sport is gonna kill it self. these guys and their management are just a disgrace to spirits of sports. if your not willing to face the best, how on earth do they have the nerve to call them selves champions ?
They aint fighters, they´re bitches. (unless they make a public statement, that they dare not fight him because theyre afraid of losing )

I totally agree with that except the spelling part

sucracristo wrote:

Taki... wrote: Again, the claim was that ggg is 'the only champion' at MW. Golovkin cant even claim an imaginary lineal championship.
How is this difficult to grasp?

when canelo said he couldn't face ggg at 160 because he isn't a true middleweight
even though he signed a contract to defend immediately against ggg in order to
get the cotto fight (after cotto threatened to vacate rather than defend against
the mandatory), and then paid ggg to delay the mandatory defense, canelo became
the lineal and undisputed BITCH of the division!!
lineal my ass

I somewhat disagree with the "undisputed" part, as Cotto has basis to claim that he is the undisputed bitch, even though he is not a "champion" anymore.

crusader wrote:

Are you being deliberately obtuse?
Well let me edify you anyway.

Nope

Firstly, the only factual case that can be made for a single champion at MW is that for Alvarez.
As I've pointed out previously there are in fact only two ways of becoming the 'true champion' -- your choice of words not mine.
Undisputed and lineal.
Neither of those ways is either speculative or arbitrary. They are -- sans a disputed result -- definitive.

Whether there are only two ways of becoming 'true champion' or whatever term is used depends largely on how the terms are defined, and I see no good reason why having a case for being the true or only legitimate champion of a division requires one to be either the lineal champion or undisputed champion.

Now you can wax poetic about 'conceptions' and 'limiting vagueness' all you want, but every example you try to give is either the aforementioned arbitrary or speculative.

There could be quite logical reasons for choosing number of title defenses as the criterion. Lineage itself is pretty much useless after one fight, as someone could win a lineal title then just keep the title hostage by facing clubfighters once a year. If the focus is on number of title defenses made, it puts pressure on top fighters to be active and consistently face ranked foes if they want to be champion. Moreover, political and business impediments that prevent deserving fighters like GGG from getting a shot at the lineal champion wouldn't be as significant in this case, as contenders can gain ground on the champ even if the latter keeps evading them. So the title would serve a broad, instrumental function while the champ would be an embodiment of regular, fairly high-level activity.

There are also computer-based rankings available today that don't depend on lineage or number of successful title defenses. Once the initial values are systematically set these produce objective results, so perhaps they could be used to determine the champs as well (maybe we could come up with averages of their rankings too). Incidentally, Alvarez would be MW champion if we employed BoxRec's rankings, but it wouldn't be based on his lineal champion status, and in certain divisions (e.g. LHW) the champion wouldn't be the current lineal title holder.

Of course there are flaws to these methods too, but the same can be said about going by lineage. I don't actually embrace any of them right now and I think that people should generally place less weight on who is champion and who isn't.

Factual is concrete. Did Alvarez beat the man who beat the man,etc? Yes. It's a matter of fact.

Right, so the title defense method is concrete too.

Whoever beats Alvarez within the MW limit can lay claim to the lineal middleweight championship. As to whether that person is better than Golovkin? Well we're back to speculation again aren't we?

No shitt they can lay claim to the lineal title; that's not the same thing as the lineal champion being the only legitimate champion in the division.

As for the speculation, doesn't that apply to the Jones-Calzaghe example you mentioned earlier? If so, why did you mention it?

Logical, reasoned, factual. Consider yourself edified

I'm sorry Taki but it seems that I'll have to look elsewhere for that. And by the way I don't have much of a problem with people referring to the lineal champ as THE champion, as long as they don't act like that makes a lineal champ any more credible at the weight (and a non-lineal champ any less credible at the weight) than their quality of opponent and performance merit. Unfortunately, it seems to me like many people place too much weight on lineage, and would see a lineal champion as being more credible than a non-lineal champion in the same division even if the latter had a much deeper resume and consistently performed better.

I have tried, perhaps you're simply incapable of understanding?

I have previously pointed out the only two ways of becoming 'the' champion. Its clearly not a matter of whether or how 'terms are defined'.
Lineal and undisputed are definitive. Anything and everything else is either arbitrary or speculative. That shouldn't be confusing, nor is it debatable.

Again, number of defences is an arbitrary factor. Lineal by contrast is definitive. And since we're discussing a specific example the whole 'club fighter hostage' nonsense is just that, nonsense.

Political and business impediments make no difference. These factors are extraneous to the point. If a fight can't be made for these reasons then that's just plain tough luck.

I've no idea -- and you've yet to provide one -- why you'd think the number of defences is concrete. It's clearly arbitrary.

As for me being nowhere near as smart as I think I am? Well all that suggests is that you're rather insecure. The only time you know what I'm thinking is when I tell you.

Doesn't speculation apply to the Calzaghe/RJJ example? Yes! Exactly. Maybe there's light at the end of the tunnel after all. Title defences are not definitive and as such everything is still open to speculation.
The lineal championship is passed on. Its not speculative. Is ggg better than Rosada? Probably. Does this preclude Rosada from becoming lineal champion? Of course not.
What we are not discussing is 'who is better'.

Apologies for any typos or mistakes, but big hands are not best suited to typing on a smart phone. Oh and good luck with that quest for fire.

Sh!t. fergusg is back.

Well then your saying canelo is the best MW because there is no undisputed, only a lineal champ, so how is he best when he ducks GGG in such an obvious way kooli Fergus brut and kbb, oh forgot tiki and 49&0, just covering all bases sybil

Pureist wrote:Well then your saying canelo is the best MW because there is no undisputed, only a lineal champ, so how is he best when he ducks GGG in such an obvious way kooli Fergus brut and kbb, oh forgot tiki and 49&0, just covering all bases sybil

Jesus wept... It has nothing to do with who is the best.
Alvarez can at least claim to be the lineal champion. Whereas ggg has no claim to being either undisputed or lineal.
And if you're trying to suggest I'm one of those other (what i assume to be) posters? Nah. One account since 05, and fcuk all interest in duplicity.

Jesus wept because you have the worst case of verbal diarrhoea in living memory, canelo has the lineal title yes, how did he get it, by fighting a blown up WW that refused to get in the ring with GGG, if GGG has wanted to be an arse, he could have made cotto drop the belt, picked it up himself and where would canelo be, canelo is only doing his ppv numbers because he was born in Mexico, NO OTHER REASON, your arguement is a worthless arguement with no substance, it really doesn't change a thing that canelo has that title, he is only borrowing it from a far superior fighter

Pureist wrote:Jesus wept because you have the worst case of verbal diarrhoea in living memory, canelo has the lineal title yes, how did he get it, by fighting a blown up WW that refused to get in the ring with GGG, if GGG has wanted to be an arse, he could have made cotto drop the belt, picked it up himself and where would canelo be, canelo is only doing his ppv numbers because he was born in Mexico, NO OTHER REASON, your arguement is a worthless arguement with no substance, it really doesn't change a thing that canelo has that title, he is only borrowing it from a far superior fighter

Verbal in a text based forum... another genius.
Alvarez has the lineal title. Exactly. Nothing else has any relevance. I'm no fan of Alvarez or ggg, so I couldn't give a monkeys about anything beyond that.
That said how can Alvarez be borrowing something ggg has never had? You ggg nuthuggers are a deluded bunch.

Back to the Lee fight, if Booth is supposed to be a master tactician then how on earth can a boxer win a fight without throwing punches? I know Willy Pep won a round without throwing any but Andy Lee tried to win a 12 round fight by not throwing. That his corner did not tell him in no uncertain terms that he was making a mistake is a serious error. I can't remember being so frustrated watching a bout, it took Lee 9 years to get to be world champ and 36 minutes of complete non aggression and stupidity to lose it all.

I have tried, perhaps you're simply incapable of understanding?

I have previously pointed out the only two ways of becoming 'the' champion. Its clearly not a matter of whether or how 'terms are defined'.
Lineal and undisputed are definitive. Anything and everything else is either arbitrary or speculative. That shouldn't be confusing, nor is it debatable.

Right, and just because you say something repeatedly doesn't mean it's true. The means of becoming 'the champion'--which is a construct and not even an official title with codified standards anyway--are not inherit and inarguable, and there are concrete and systematic alternatives with sound reasoning behind their use.

Again, number of defences is an arbitrary factor. Lineal by contrast is definitive. And since we're discussing a specific example the whole 'club fighter hostage' nonsense is just that, nonsense.

Number of title defenses isn't more arbitrary than lineage; in each case you're just choosing something that you feel best approximates the what 'the champ' or equivalents mean. Using number of title defenses has a strong logical basis and can be a factual matter, while there are also computer-based systems that produce objective results in a logical way--not just randomly or through personal whim.

Political and business impediments make no difference. These factors are extraneous to the point. If a fight can't be made for these reasons then that's just plain tough luck.

Why should they be irrelevant? Since being 'the champion' or the 'true champion' involves made-up labels that are not formally given by a sanctioning body or other organization, there is latitude for people to decide what those labels should encapsulate and what purpose the championship should serve.

I've no idea -- and you've yet to provide one -- why you'd think the number of defences is concrete. It's clearly arbitrary.

Okay, this confirms to me that you're struggling with your words. Something can be concrete and arbitrary; they are not opposites.

Numbers of defences can be defined in a manner that makes it a factual matter and there is logic to using it.

As for me being nowhere near as smart as I think I am? Well all that suggests is that you're rather insecure. The only time you know what I'm thinking is when I tell you.

I'm perfectly secure, and am not the one reassuring myself by talking about edifying people or how eloquent I am. I just think it's humorous when people try to paint others as obtuse or slow to the point when they're the one unable to grasp the issues under discussion.

Doesn't speculation apply to the Calzaghe/RJJ example? Yes! Exactly. Maybe there's light at the end of the tunnel after all. Title defences are not definitive and as such everything is still open to speculation.

Right, so maybe you should track your argument closely. You gave the Calzaghe/RJJ example to show the shortcomings of the title defense method, because presumably you think it's unreasonable to claim that Calzaghe was a superior fighter at 168, but that's just you speculating as to who is better so there's not much in your argument is there?

The lineal championship is passed on. Its not speculative. Is ggg better than Rosada? Probably. Does this preclude Rosada from becoming lineal champion? Of course not.
What we are not discussing is 'who is better'.

Actually you were discussing who was better:

How exactly is that concrete. Calzaghe was a better SM than RJJ because he had more defences? As criteria goes its fatuous at best.

Note that I mentioned Rosado in response to that, so I was just using your terminology.

Step your game up Taki

palooka wrote:Back to the Lee fight, if Booth is supposed to be a master tactician then how on earth can a boxer win a fight without throwing punches? I know Willy Pep won a round without throwing any but Andy Lee tried to win a 12 round fight by not throwing. That his corner did not tell him in no uncertain terms that he was making a mistake is a serious error. I can't remember being so frustrated watching a bout, it took Lee 9 years to get to be world champ and 36 minutes of complete non aggression and stupidity to lose it all.

BJS countered him fairly well early, and the first KD came when Lee was trying to throw his own right hook, so maybe Andy was a bit weary as a result. I actually think that apart from the KD round the bout was pretty much even, but with those KDs against him Andy needed to up the gears and he failed to do that soon enough.

I hear you and Saunders is a hard fighter to outbox when he's in his rhythm, Lee had to force him out of that even if it meant getting countered. He had months and months to get his head around it.

palooka wrote:Back to the Lee fight, if Booth is supposed to be a master tactician then how on earth can a boxer win a fight without throwing punches? I know Willy Pep won a round without throwing any but Andy Lee tried to win a 12 round fight by not throwing. That his corner did not tell him in no uncertain terms that he was making a mistake is a serious error. I can't remember being so frustrated watching a bout, it took Lee 9 years to get to be world champ and 36 minutes of complete non aggression and stupidity to lose it all.

Lee is just not capable of fighting differently. He is a B level fighter who was lucky to become a champion.

Saunders is B level too, and he already started ducking two of the most dangerous opponents, not only Golovkin but also Eubank Jr:

http://www.BS.com/saunders-eub ... ght--99650?

To be fair Saunders has already beaten Eubank Jnr.

palooka wrote:To be fair Saunders has already beaten Eubank Jnr.

Yep, it was a split decision, and only excessive clinching allowed Saunders to win that. Rematch seems more than logical.

Lee waited for ages with that low lead front potentially snapping jab and the threat of the big punch right behind it.
Lee does this a lot, it has worked but BJS saw it coming.

crusader wrote:

Right, and just because you say something repeatedly doesn't mean it's true. The means of becoming 'the champion'--which is a construct and not even an official title with codified standards anyway--are not inherit and inarguable, and there are concrete and systematic alternatives with sound reasoning behind their use.

Number of title defenses isn't more arbitrary than lineage; in each case you're just choosing something that you feel best approximates the what 'the champ' or equivalents mean. Using number of title defenses has a strong logical basis and can be a factual matter, while there are also computer-based systems that produce objective results in a logical way--not just randomly or through personal whim.

Why should they be irrelevant? Since being 'the champion' or the 'true champion' involves made-up labels that are not formally given by a sanctioning body or other organization, there is latitude for people to decide what those labels should encapsulate and what purpose the championship should serve.

Okay, this confirms to me that you're struggling with your words. Something can be concrete and arbitrary; they are not opposites.

Numbers of defences can be defined in a manner that makes it a factual matter and there is logic to using it.

I'm perfectly secure, and am not the one reassuring myself by talking about edifying people or how eloquent I am. I just think it's humorous when people try to paint others as obtuse or slow to the point when they're the one unable to grasp the issues under discussion.

Right, so maybe you should track your argument closely. You gave the Calzaghe/RJJ example to show the shortcomings of the title defense method, because presumably you think it's unreasonable to claim that Calzaghe was a superior fighter at 168, but that's just you speculating as to who is better so there's not much in your argument is there?

Actually you were discussing who was better:

Step your game up Taki

It's more a case of you disagreeing with me writing something factual. True doesn't really come in to it.
There are two ways in which a boxer -- or non nuthugger fans -- can lay claim to being 'the champion'. The two ways I have outlined.
You've yet to provide any kind of reasoning, let alone sound reasoning, behind the only 'alternative' you've proposed so far.
And btw, you probably meant inherent not inherit... what was that about struggling with words?

Firstly you need to consider the origin of a lineal championship. It's not like one day a boxer just decides they're the lineal champion and away we go. Some how, somewhere, someone has to earn it. Usually it means clearing out a division. Beating the best.
Number of defences by comparison is clearly arbitrary. We can point to innumerable examples where a champion can, and does, take easier fights than a contender. Where a champion coasts. And then there's always the bum of the month tour. It's random, unreasoned, unsupported, irrational, illogical, unjustified... which is to say arbitrary.

Which 'made-up' labels are these? You -- and probably a whole bunch of nuthugger fanboys -- seem desperate to muddy the waters of what might or might not constitute the criteria for 'champion' status.

I'm quite aware of what the words I use mean. Maybe you should read what I wrote again and then look up the word context.

Clearly the number of defences is a factual thing, but when used to to decide who should or shouldn't be 'the champion' of any given division IT IS ARBITRARY.

Yeah, you're so secure you're now trying to pretend that me fcuking about was intended to be taken seriously. No kind of inferiority complex there.

So close and yet so far... I gave the Calzaghe/RJJ example because NO ONE in their right mind would suggest that Calzaghe's multiple defences is anything other than an completely ARBITRARY way of deciding who was better, or more worthy of being 'the champ' at the weight.

You thought I was discussing who is better. I wasn't. Doesn't say much for your comprehension skills...

Step your game up Taki... or in Spanish; no mas, no mas, Taki...

Taki/fergusg,

Can you drop that cra@p and say who the best MW is. Not best 155-lber, not best cripple beater, but a boxer who you think will beat everybody else at 160.

You must be getting confused with what alt you are using taki, you just told yourself to step up your game moron

ikorolev wrote:Taki,

Can you drop that cra@p and say who the best MW is. Not best 155-lber, not best cripple beater, but a boxer who you think will beat everybody else at 160.

I don't care who 'the best MW is'. I know who the lineal middleweight champion is. And just to add to your boxing knowledge, anything over 154lbs is middleweight.

Taki... wrote:

ikorolev wrote:Taki,

Can you drop that cra@p and say who the best MW is. Not best 155-lber, not best cripple beater, but a boxer who you think will beat everybody else at 160.

I don't care who 'the best MW is'. I know who the lineal middleweight champion is. And just to add to your boxing knowledge, anything over 154lbs is middleweight.

That's the difference between you and majority here. We care about who is the best, not some imaginary title.

Yes, anything above 154 is middleweight, but limiting your opponent's ability to weigh 160 in title fights makes your title illegitimate.