ABC Belts = Lineal?

[kg0208]

Do you need to unify the ABC belts to re establish Lineage when a title is vacated? Yes or no, state your case and any info you have to back up your case. This way, we know where ESB stands.

IMO the ABC belts don't have anything to do with the lineal title and the only reason unification ever works to establish lineage is because the Top 2 fighters are usually involved. But in this day and age of stripped titles, it doesn't always guarantee it.

So IMO, the lineage can only be established when the top 2 fighters get it on, regardless of what belts they hold.

[PH|LLA]

it depends on a bunch of shit

but in general, if you ignore titles being stripped and consider that the lineage of the individual titles, then when those lineages all cross roads, you will definately have a linear champion.

[kg0208]

it depends on a bunch of shit

but in general, if you ignore titles being stripped and consider that the lineage of the individual titles, then when those lineages all cross roads, you will definately have a linear champion.

But unification doesn't ignore stripping. I will put it this way. I don't think that 130lb division could unify the 3 major titles and get a lineal champion. You know why? Pacman is considered #1 in that division. And you can't be lineal champion no matter how many belts you have unified if you don't beat Pacman. And if Pacman fought JMM....for me, the winner has established a new lineage, even with only one title on the line.

[PH|LLA]

But unification doesn't ignore stripping. I will put it this way. I don't think that 130lb division could unify the 3 major titles and get a lineal champion. You know why? Pacman is considered #1 in that division. And you can't be lineal champion no matter how many belts you have unified if you don't beat Pacman. And if Pacman fought JMM....for me, the winner has established a new lineage, even with only one title on the line.
actually, unification does not always mean lineage but in many cases it does

[kg0208]

actually, unification does not always mean lineage but in many cases it does
Yah, thats true. I agree....

I am saying that it only works when it does because the top 2 fighters are generally present. If they are not present, due to stripping, then it does nothing.

[Stinky gloves]

In case of no lineage the guy recognized as #1 must face #2 or #3 in the whole division ...
I'm not sure if they both must have the tiles, its probably case dependent.

However hard to say who decides about top 3. Right now the HW Ring
list is as follow:

1. Wladimir Klitschko
2. Samuel Peter
3. Oleg Maskaev
4. Ruslan Chagaev

I would say that Wlad vs Chagaev/Maskaev would make linear title.
I like the idea of title unification in the same process so Peter must wait for his own.

[thesandman]

I have argued on the other thread about this, but one thing we must all agree on.

The Ring <> lineage.

That is all.

[Chert]

But unification doesn't ignore stripping. I will put it this way. I don't think that 130lb division could unify the 3 major titles and get a lineal champion. You know why? Pacman is considered #1 in that division. And you can't be lineal champion no matter how many belts you have unified if you don't beat Pacman. And if Pacman fought JMM....for me, the winner has established a new lineage, even with only one title on the line.
yep. only a new lineal champ in 130 will be crowned when pac and jmm finally fight. barrera wan't the lineal champ when jmm beat him. i think he was #2 behind pac.

@135, casa is still currently the lineal champ but doesn't hold an ABC belt being stripped of his WBC title recently. juan diaz who holds two ABC titles and rated #1 must defeat casa to become lineal champ.

in short, the top two fighters in a weight division regardless of whether or not they currently hold ABC titles must fight to establish a lineal champ. imo, the ring ratings are the closest thing we have to tracking the lineal champ in every weight division.

[kg0208]

I have argued on the other thread about this, but one thing we must all agree on.

The Ring <> lineage.

That is all.

Yes we have. But that thread was not about that originally. This will get more of ESB's opinion I think, which is my goal. None of us know it all, so lets see where the info comes from.

BTW, where did you see that the site provided to you showed Spinks as Lineal? It shows PBF as lineal....you must have looked in the wrong place. [Only registered and activated users can see links]

Are you saying you think the Ring and Lineage are equal? Kinda confused by your post.

[kg0208]

yep. only a new lineal champ in 130 will be crowned when pac and jmm finally fight. barrera wan't the lineal champ when jmm beat him. i think he was #2 behind pac.

@135, casa is still currently the lineal champ but doesn't hold an ABC belt being stripped of his WBC title recently. juan diaz who holds two ABC titles and rated #1 must defeat casa to become lineal champ.

You know, I thought Casa was the lineal champ too. The site I am using claims there has not been a LW lineal champion since Pernell Whitaker, and that PBF vs Castillo did not establish lineage, so it was never re-established. If you could find something showing that Casa is lineal, I would like to see it, because I believed he was as well.

[thesandman]

Yes we have. But that thread was not about that originally. This will get more of ESB's opinion I think, which is my goal. None of us know it all, so lets see where the info comes from.

BTW, where did you see that the site provided to you showed Spinks as Lineal? It shows PBF as lineal....you must have looked in the wrong place. [Only registered and activated users can see links]

Are you saying you think the Ring and Lineage are equal? Kinda confused by your post.

No, I was just responding to this post....

In case of no lineage the guy recognized as #1 must face #2 or #3 in the whole division ...
I'm not sure if they both must have the tiles, its probably case dependent.

However hard to say who decides about top 3. Right now the HW Ring
list is as follow:

1. Wladimir Klitschko
2. Samuel Peter
3. Oleg Maskaev
4. Ruslan Chagaev

I would say that Wlad vs Chagaev/Maskaev would make linear title.
I like the idea of title unification in the same process so Peter must wait for his own.

mentioning who the Ring had ranked where.

I just won't even bother if we have a load of ring magazine references - and I'm not having a dig at the guy that posted either.

[cross_trainer]

In general, it does. Lineage is established by an eliminator of the best contenders against each other. Since the four beltholders are theoretically the best four contenders (based upon the fact that you must fight "worthy" opponents to get these belts...occasionally untrue but generally correct), an elimination tournament must be fought between them to determine "the man".

[thesandman]

In general, it does. Lineage is established by an eliminator of the best contenders against each other. Since the four beltholders are theoretically the best four contenders (based upon the fact that you must fight "worthy" opponents to get these belts...occasionally untrue but generally correct), an elimination tournament must be fought between them to determine "the man".

Thanks for summing up what has taken me about 20 posts to try and say....

[kg0208]

No, I was just responding to this post....



mentioning who the Ring had ranked where.

I just won't even bother if we have a load of ring magazine references - and I'm not having a dig at the guy that posted either.

I didn't think you were having a dig. I am asking you what you mean?

You used <>....that means both Ring and Lineal or greater and less than the other. I am asking what you mean.

[kg0208]

In general, it does. Lineage is established by an eliminator of the best contenders against each other. Since the four beltholders are theoretically the best four contenders (based upon the fact that you must fight "worthy" opponents to get these belts...occasionally untrue but generally correct), an elimination tournament must be fought between them to determine "the man".

And if the top 4 are NOT the 4 beltholders?

Like at 130 or 135?

[kg0208]

Thanks for summing up what has taken me about 20 posts to try and say....

He didn't say what you have been saying. I am in total agreement with that post. He said generally and theoretically.

Generally unification does involve the top fighters. It doesn't always, and if they are not present, the ABC belts become useless.

[thesandman]

He didn't say what you have been saying. I am in total agreement with that post. He said generally and theoretically.

Generally unification does involve the top fighters. It doesn't always, and if they are not present, the ABC belts become useless.

He did. I just didn't explain my logic correctly.

I have been saying that if the line is broken, you need to unify all the belts to 'restart' it as such. (IMO of course)

The reason you do that (which I never said :oops: ) is because the belt holders are considered the best. If you beat them all, and have all the belts, you should be the best. At which point, you can be considered the lineal champ.

I don't think we're poles apart, but you have been saying #1 and #2 etc - but based on nothing. I have just been basing it on, if you have 4 guys with the abc belts (or 3 really, I'm not sold on the WBO just yet) - then they PROBABLY are the best 3.

I don't believe that if you have 3 belt holders, you should be calling somebody outside of those 3, and #1 or #2 ranked guy. That's just waaaaay too subjective for me.

[thesandman]

<> means not equal to. I guess that's my IT background coming out.....

[El Bombasto]

Well, there has to be some standard established before a lineal champ can be designated

[kg0208]

He did. I just didn't explain my logic correctly.

I have been saying that if the line is broken, you need to unify all the belts to 'restart' it as such. (IMO of course)

The reason you do that (which I never said :oops: ) is because the belt holders are considered the best. If you beat them all, and have all the belts, you should be the best. At which point, you can be considered the lineal champ.

I don't think we're poles apart, but you have been saying #1 and #2 etc - but based on nothing. I have just been basing it on, if you have 4 guys with the abc belts (or 3 really, I'm not sold on the WBO just yet) - then they PROBABLY are the best 3.

I don't believe that if you have 3 belt holders, you should be calling somebody outside of those 3, and #1 or #2 ranked guy. That's just waaaaay too subjective for me.
OK, I can see where you're coming from. However, we still leave the problem of cases like Pacman and Casamayor, both beltless and considered #1 in their weight classes. Not just by Ring, but other publications and the public in general. What do we do in those cases?

My problem is "general consensus". I am having a hard to explaining that. However, I have equaled it to this. The IBF over time became considered equal to the WBA and WBC. Considered by whom? The boxing public right? I would say that the same boxing public who over time brought the IBF up to the WBA and BC, are the same ones who decide who the #1 and #2 are.

<> means not equal to. I guess that's my IT background coming out.....

Gotcha!

[Chert]

i think the process of determining a lineal champ in a weight division will be much easier if we first agree upon who the top two fighters in a weight division are. the next step is to establish if one of them currently holds lineage (lineal champ).

that's why imo the ring ratings are the closest thing we currently have in tracking the lineal champ in every weight division. but i do agree it would be very difficult to reach a "general consensus" so the ring ratings are a good starting point.

[thesandman]

OK, I can see where you're coming from. However, we still leave the problem of cases like Pacman and Casamayor, both beltless and considered #1 in their weight classes. Not just by Ring, but other publications and the public in general. What do we do in those cases?


Well, I think in those cases that's just unfortunate for those guys.

There are always exceptions to anything that comes along. Thing is, if you open the door, there are too many exceptions that seem valid IMO.

I need something definitive to stake my claim on eg the belts. It may be harsh in some cases, but it's measurable. (It's also far from perfect, but that's another matter).

Public opinion isn't. Lets say the current LHW champ retired. And PBF and Winky decided to have a fight at LHW. Would the winner be lineal? Or Calzaghe and Kessler had a fight at LHW? See what I mean.

The belts prove a guy is decent, and has a history at that weight, that's all.

[PH|LLA]

Yes we have. But that thread was not about that originally. This will get more of ESB's opinion I think, which is my goal. None of us know it all, so lets see where the info comes from.

BTW, where did you see that the site provided to you showed Spinks as Lineal? It shows PBF as lineal....you must have looked in the wrong place. [Only registered and activated users can see links]

Are you saying you think the Ring and Lineage are equal? Kinda confused by your post.
<> is nerd talk for "not equal to"

[deram]

Well...

Lineage goes from winner to winner.

So far so good.

IF lineage is broken it can only be reinstated when championships are unified.

In other words when WBC and WBA are unified. OR if we use stricter demands when WBC, WBA and IBF are unified.

______________________________

The reason why "when the two best in the division fight" in itself is not useful, is because noone is ever going to agree who these two best fighters are. And if we simply go with the majority, it would be dictatorship of the majority since many people are nationalistic the biggest country will decide who the best are. In LHW currently the two best would be Hopkins and Dawson - although Erdei may have a good claim, but for the completely unjustified reason that there are more Americans, Erdei's case is irrelevant no matter what he has done.

That is why "the 2 best" is right, but we need a way to settle that, which is transparent and consistent.

While unifying the belts will not always give the right picture it is up to the fighters to make it give the right picture. Maybe Teofilio Stevenson was the best boxer and better than Ali, but it was up to him to turn pro and prove it! Just like a fighter today that is not champ, cannot claim to be the best and has to do an effort to get a belt and start unifying if lineage has been broken.

[achillesthegreat]

Do you need to unify the ABC belts to re establish Lineage when a title is vacated? Yes or no, state your case and any info you have to back up your case. This way, we know where ESB stands.

IMO the ABC belts don't have anything to do with the lineal title and the only reason unification ever works to establish lineage is because the Top 2 fighters are usually involved. But in this day and age of stripped titles, it doesn't always guarantee it.

So IMO, the lineage can only be established when the top 2 fighters get it on, regardless of what belts they hold.
WBA and WBC establish lineage.

The orgs i.e. NBA, BBBofC used to dictate who the champ was. These orgs formed into the WBA and WBC.

Every other belt is just a splinter group or trinket.

[kg0208]

WBA and WBC establish lineage.

The orgs i.e. NBA, BBBofC used to dictate who the champ was. These orgs formed into the WBA and WBC.

Every other belt is just a splinter group or trinket.
I thought the WBC split from the WBA (NBA)?

I have heard this theory before as well....but I am not sure any of us are correct anymore.

[TBooze]

WBA and WBC establish lineage.

The orgs i.e. NBA, BBBofC used to dictate who the champ was. These orgs formed into the WBA and WBC.

Every other belt is just a splinter group or trinket.

What? Look at the hsitory of alphabet crap:

The WBC was splintered from the WBA in 1963, as was the IBF (1983) and WBO (87-88).

The NBA (WBA post 1962) was splintered from the NYSAC in 1921...

The IBU formed in 1911, the NSC the future (BBB of C) formed in 1891, and Richard K Fox's Police Gazzette was giving out titles as early as the late 1880's.

To gain a World Champion at a weight that has a vacant championship is not rocket science, if the #1 and #2 contenders meet the winner will be World Champion, you do not need WBA, C, F, G or Z to tell you that!

[Stinky gloves]

<> means not equal to. I guess that's my IT background coming out.....

maybe =/= means not equal

[kg0208]

WBC + WBA + IBF = Undisputed championship > Lineal

If you cant do that you better be moving up in wieght or retiring which will diminish your legacy at that wieght.

Whether the Unified title is greater than the Lineal title is debatable. It depends on who owns what title.