Which better: ring belt or lineal?

[Stinky gloves]

They both originate in similar fashion, the guys fighting at the top #3 positions
in the division and possibly unifying the titles can be awarded with such a title.
So at the beggining the titles are pretty the same. The differences comes later.

Lineal champion cannot be stripped from the title and untill he is active and undefeated
he keeps it all the time. Not sure what Ring states but I think if fighter is inactive/faded
and someone else comes around and unify division then Ring belt may be awarded
for him and the first guy may be stripped from this title.

Two different cases may happen.

1) The lineal champion once created may fade or avoid the toughest competition
and if finally beaten he pass his lineal title to lesser oponent.
A case of LHW path: Hill -> Michalczewski -> Gonzales -> Erdei

The good thing is that the title stay in the division and keeps undefeated track
so even if it goes to lesser opponent it will always rise up to
"undefeated" fighter and one day possibly to true champion.

The other positive aspect is that it cannot be awarded outside ring but
only the correct fighter must be defeated.

The bad is that fighter may avoid any though competition once he get
the title and be lineal until retires.

2) The ring champion once awarded may fade also and untill he is active and
keep fighting recognized names he keeps the title. However the "recognized" names
may be long past the best and don't need to be related to the particular division.
Example again form the LHW division:
Jones -> Tarver -> Johnson -> Tarver -> Hopkins -> Wright ????

So the bad thing is that guys who are completely not related to the division
and its current state of art may capture the title and block the division activity.
I doubt that Hopkins or Wright are going to fight any live LHW contender and
they are blocking all the top activity over there.

The good thing is that the title is always around the popular names so
it mekes attention.

Reasumming I think that lineal belt is somewhat a hardcore boxing title
while the Ring belt is more related to boxing popularity. What do you think?

[PH|LLA]

Lineal shits all over ring belt

[Nuke]

Burn all the belts but one per division. Look at Hopkins in Pharaoh's avatar, that is retarded all those belts.

[Brickhaus]

You're much more likely to have a guy who sucks holding the lineal belt than the Ring belt. The Shannon Briggs and Herbie Hides of the world can't get to that level.

[Stinky gloves]

As for the undisputed champion case in the above examples.
It can happen that Drews decision Woods and Dawson and
become undisputed champion keeping WBA/WBC/IBF titles.

But Erdei will still keep the lineal title beating Johnson, Briggs etc.

While Hopkins may be still Ring champion beating Wright, Jones and
e.g. Calzaghe in the catch weight.

They all will avoid each other, so who you will see the true champion over there?

[BobDigi5060]

Ring belt for the moment but Lineal is what really counts. No way does a world title and a Ring belt eclipse capturing the other major belts in a division

[King Dan]

Ring = Lineal

[PH|LLA]

Ring = Lineal
no. at SMW there is no Lineal until Kessler and Calz get it on. Yet Calz is the ring champ. Don't forget teh ring is an american magazine first and foremost and that it will always be biased.

[Rumsfeld]

Ring = Lineal

Nay! Ring had RJJ, and not Michalczewski, as their champion. DM was linear.

:smoke

[Stinky gloves]

You're much more likely to have a guy who sucks holding the lineal belt than the Ring belt. The Shannon Briggs and Herbie Hides of the world can't get to that level.
You right but the lineal belt always keeps comping fast to true champion, like Briggs passed
it to Lewis. So even if it slips away for a while it comes back like bumerang.

The ring belt may slip for a longer time since there is no way to force
Ring champion to fight true contenders like the whole Tarver/Jones/Johnson
trilogies and Hopkins fighting Wright at this moment.

[Stewbear]

the ring belt means absolutely nothing it is just another trinket given out by a magazine for goodness sakes!

[Imperial1]

Ring the lineal belt can be passed around like a cheap hooker ..

[ironchamp]

Undisputed. Because being undisputed means that you are the man to beat.

In 1997 did anyone really see George Foreman as the Champ even though he had the lineal belt? No. Evander Holyfield was considered the man. Lennox Lewis to some extent was considered the man. But George Foreman had the lineal belt.

[Thread Stealer]

You're much more likely to have a guy who sucks holding the lineal belt than the Ring belt. The Shannon Briggs and Herbie Hides of the world can't get to that level.

If The Ring had their policy in effect in 1997-1998, then Shannon Briggs would've been the champion.

[PH|LLA]

how did virgil hill become lineal?

[Stinky gloves]

how did virgil hill become lineal?

At that time Maske, Hill and Michalczewski were top 3 guys.
Maske and Hill unified the titles so what is you question about?

I understand you are Jones fan and try to bring something fishy up?

[Lampley]

The lineal belt is too arbitrary and too often related to happenstance, rather than rewarding the best fighter. The Jones/DM thing is a good example.

I understand the charges of bias and can respect that perspective on things, but for me, you need you need to have the flexibility to make qualitiative assessment, but a simple A to B to C results in too many weird/undeserving champs.

[Jose FM]

Linear.

[El Bombasto]

You're much more likely to have a guy who sucks holding the lineal belt than the Ring belt. The Shannon Briggs and Herbie Hides of the world can't get to that level.

Any org. that would rank Baldomir a top 5 WW doesn't have much credibility with me.

[El Bombasto]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Asterion]

They are pretty much the same.


The lineal belt is too arbitrary and too often related to happenstance, rather than rewarding the best fighter.

There is no such thing as a Lineal "belt". The Ring gives it's belt to the Lineal Champ, and they are accurate 99% of times.

[Fitir]

Mormeck has a simple opinion about it and it's not completely stupid. Ring etc. can say what they want, you can have 2 belts, you can be lineal or something else...if another guy in your division has a major belt (WBC-WBA-IBF and now WB0) you are not THE champion. The only way to become the man : obtaining a major belt, defending a couple of times and challenging the other titleholders to reach the goal "collecting all the belts". He failed but his division looks good now , guys in the top 10 don't avoid each other at cruiser.

[New Wind]

I agree with Ironchamp..

Undisputed is more important than all the titles and historical bru ha ha you can conjure up.

of course.. if all thress are on the same guy, like bhop back in the day, that's coolest:-)

Or like they will be on the winner of JC-VW

[Lampley]

They are pretty much the same.




There is no such thing as a Lineal "belt". The Ring gives it's belt to the Lineal Champ, and they are accurate 99% of times.

Not always. There are some pretty glaring examples of people claiming to be linear by a strict interpretation, while the better fighters -- and bigger money fights -- are happening for the Ring belt.

None of them is perfect, though. Only a unified organization could see to that.

[achillesthegreat]

The fact this question is being asked is disgraceful.

[bmf95b]

What the hell does the lineal belt look like?

[FiveStoneFists]

Undisputed Champion - As long as there are other titleholders (WBC, IBF, WBA, and to some WBO), the championship will be disputed because there are others with a claim of being champion. In a multi belt environment, being undisputed champion has the most prestige.

Linear Title - The man who beat the man who beat the man. This title is the true title in a single belt environment where the title is passed on by beating the previous titleholder or by fighting for the vacant title. I have it second most preferred because we operate in a multi belt environment; that is our reality.

Ring Title - This is the least preferred title. To get in the position to earn a vacant Ring title you have to either become the undisputed champion or be the #1 contender fighting the #2, or #3 when the title is vacant. Who is #1, #2, #3 is generally based on exposure and winning one of the original titles (WBC, WBA, IBF and now WBO).

Fighters gain fame and notoriety when they win one of the alphabet belts. The undisputed title is therefore in the current situation my preferred choice because in most circumstances it ends the dispute as to who is champion. If their is an undisputed champion, the Linear or Ring champion will generally have to fight him to restore credibility.

[Asterion]

What the hell does the lineal belt look like?


It doesn't exist. It's more like a "moral" title.

You can say, however, that the Ring Belt goes most times to the Lineal Champ. The Ring belt is de facto the belt for the Lineal Champ.

[Cruiser1]

You're much more likely to have a guy who sucks holding the lineal belt than the Ring belt. The Shannon Briggs and Herbie Hides of the world can't get to that level.

Wait a minute. If a guy wins the linear belt that means he did something right. I mean at some point the linear title was held by a legitimate champion so the guy who beats him has to be considered legitimate himself and the same for the next guy.

When Holyfield won back the titles from Bowe he became the linear champ again. As legitimate a champion as you will find. However, Michael Moorer (not exactly a worldbeater) took the belts from Evander and regardless of what you think of Moorer he legitimately beat "the man" and became linear champ. That gives him credibility whether we like it or not. Foreman beat Moorer and Briggs beat Foreman (at least the judges thought he did) so Briggs nabbed the linear title. Was Briggs the best fighter in the world at that time? Absolutely not. However, he did earn himself a spot in boxing immortality albeit in a much lesser sense than ATG status. For all of his BS, Shannon Briggs is still part of the lineage.

[Axe]

The linear/lineal title is the most important.

[deram]

the question would be like What is the real world champion in football? - the winner of the World Cup or no. 1 on Sports Illustrated's latest issue?"

The Ring is not a bad alternative to some of the individual belts, but at the end of the day it is just an american sports magazine that sells less copies than SI.

[Zakman]

They are pretty much the same.




There is no such thing as a Lineal "belt". The Ring gives it's belt to the Lineal Champ, and they are accurate 99% of times.

Exactly. The Ring belt is the most legitimate in the sport, because it is won or lost in the RING, where it matters - unlike those alphabet trinkets, which are sometimes just given out (Hasim Rahman is a good, recent example).

[ripcity]

I went with current undisputed champion. If the choices was only Ring or Lineal. I would have picked Lineal sense that title dates back to the begining of the sport, The Ring starts in 1922 (I thik) so it to has some history behind it. In a perfect world there would be only one tittle per division. However we need to be realistic. There are four World tittles that are acatped as legidimit world tittles WBC, WBA, IBF, and WBO. To be a champion a boxer must do so in the boxing ring. To truly be a champion he needs to unify all four tittles. This is no easy task consdering the politics involved.

[Asterion]

I went with current undisputed champion. If the choices was only Ring or Lineal. I would have picked Lineal sense that title dates back to the begining of the sport, The Ring starts in 1922 (I thik) so it to has some history behind it. In a perfect world there would be only one tittle per division. However we need to be realistic. There are four World tittles that are acatped as legidimit world tittles WBC, WBA, IBF, and WBO. To be a champion a boxer must do so in the boxing ring. To truly be a champion he needs to unify all four tittles. This is no easy task consdering the politics involved.



So you're telling me that Hatton and Casamayor aren't current "real" Champions? :think


Fuck the four ABC pseudo-titles, the Champs can exist without them and are still Champs, and can only lose that title in the ring.

[deram]

Exactly. The Ring belt is the most legitimate in the sport, because it is won or lost in the RING, where it matters - unlike those alphabet trinkets, which are sometimes just given out (Hasim Rahman is a good, recent example).


The Ring is full of problems.

The magazine has an undisputed tendency to rank Americans significantly higher than they objectively should be. This will always increase the likelyhoo of having an American Ring champ. So it is only partly won in the ring, much of it is won on paper by deciding who gets what ranking and whether or not to use the rule for "special occasions".

If an american is no 3 and fighting no. 1 in a division with no. Ring champ then "the special rule" almost always goes into action. If no. 3 is a none american then the rule almost never goes into action.

A recent example is Calzaghe-Lacy. Usually the champ is decided by 1 vs. 2 - however since Lacy was American and favoured (in the US) to win, "the special rule" was set in motion. Against expectations Lacy lost and that gave Calzaghe the belt instead.

So, very much of who is and who is not the Ring champ is decided on the desk of the Ring magazine. In reality the upcoming fight between 1 and 2 should have been the fight for the first real champion in many years and not the fight with Lacy.

The Ring benked on the Lacy fight being the main one ... and was proven wrong.

Lineraity will be inaugurated when Kessler and Calzaghe clash and THAT is what really should happen. The winner will also be the Ring champ, but it was a common show of US-bias that allowed the Lacy fight to be for the Ring belt in the first place. The Kessler-Calzaghe fight is happening DESPITE and not because of the Ring.

So in this as in most other cases linearity is far supiriour to the Ring.

[Cruiser1]

The Ring is full of problems.

The magazine has an undisputed tendency to rank Americans significantly higher than they objectively should be. This will always increase the likelyhoo of having an American Ring champ. So it is only partly won in the ring, much of it is won on paper by deciding who gets what ranking and whether or not to use the rule for "special occasions".

If an american is no 3 and fighting no. 1 in a division with no. Ring champ then "the special rule" almost always goes into action. If no. 3 is a none american then the rule almost never goes into action.

A recent example is Calzaghe-Lacy. Usually the champ is decided by 1 vs. 2 - however since Lacy was American and favoured (in the US) to win, "the special rule" was set in motion. Against expectations Lacy lost and that gave Calzaghe the belt instead.

So, very much of who is and who is not the Ring champ is decided on the desk of the Ring magazine. In reality the upcoming fight between 1 and 2 should have been the fight for the first real champion in many years and not the fight with Lacy.

The Ring benked on the Lacy fight being the main one ... and was proven wrong.

Lineraity will be inaugurated when Kessler and Calzaghe clash and THAT is what really should happen.

So in this as in most other cases linearity is far supiriour to the Ring.

All will be resolved in Cardiff.

[achillesthegreat]

I agree. The RING magazine belt is suppossed to be the magazine's best attempt at establishing the linear champion in each weight division. It may not be perfect, but to piss all over it is just feeding into the whole alphabet organization dilemma we've got, and it also further damages boxing. I support The RING belt because atleast somone is trying to bring championship credibilty back into our sport, and I for one think that's a very good thing.
They are trying to bring back credibility like the WBO, IBF, WBU, IBU, IBO, IBC etc

They should use their voice to make the WBC and WBA do the right thing.

They are corrupt and inaccurate just like all the other orgs.

[Thread Stealer]

The Ring is full of problems.

The magazine has an undisputed tendency to rank Americans significantly higher than they objectively should be. This will always increase the likelyhoo of having an American Ring champ. So it is only partly won in the ring, much of it is won on paper by deciding who gets what ranking and whether or not to use the rule for "special occasions".

If an american is no 3 and fighting no. 1 in a division with no. Ring champ then "the special rule" almost always goes into action. If no. 3 is a none american then the rule almost never goes into action.

A recent example is Calzaghe-Lacy. Usually the champ is decided by 1 vs. 2 - however since Lacy was American and favoured (in the US) to win, "the special rule" was set in motion. Against expectations Lacy lost and that gave Calzaghe the belt instead.

So, very much of who is and who is not the Ring champ is decided on the desk of the Ring magazine. In reality the upcoming fight between 1 and 2 should have been the fight for the first real champion in many years and not the fight with Lacy.

The Ring benked on the Lacy fight being the main one ... and was proven wrong.

Lineraity will be inaugurated when Kessler and Calzaghe clash and THAT is what really should happen. The winner will also be the Ring champ, but it was a common show of US-bias that allowed the Lacy fight to be for the Ring belt in the first place. The Kessler-Calzaghe fight is happening DESPITE and not because of the Ring.

So in this as in most other cases linearity is far supiriour to the Ring.

That #3 vs. #1 for the vacant title also happened with an African vs. a European for the HW title in 2004.

What other occassions besides Lacy-Calzaghe did they have the #1 vs. #3 for the vacant title with an American?

[Rumsfeld]

Exactly. The Ring belt is the most legitimate in the sport, because it is won or lost in the RING, where it matters - unlike those alphabet trinkets, which are sometimes just given out (Hasim Rahman is a good, recent example).

Please explain why Roy Jones was the Ring's champion, when Michalczewski hadn't lost it in the ring.

:smoke

[Thread Stealer]

Please explain why Roy Jones was the Ring's champion, when Michalczewski hadn't lost it in the ring.

:smoke

Even Nigel Collins said that if The Ring's policy had been in effect back then, DM would've been the champ @ 175.

[Lacyace]

Have you seen this...

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[kg0208]

Please explain why Roy Jones was the Ring's champion, when Michalczewski hadn't lost it in the ring.

:smoke

Ring wasn't awarding belts when DM won the title. By the time Ring had put it's policy back in effect, DM was Lineal and WBO champ (which still frankly isn't recognized by everyone....nor should it be. How can we complain about their being too many titles, then recognize ANOTHER one as being legit) and RJJ was the Undisputed champ.

[Marciano Frazier]

They're mostly the same thing. RING generally recognizes people because they're linear champs. But overall, the linear title is the most important.

[C Money]

Undisputed/UNIFIED is the highest honor one can currently attain and the process guarantee's a new LINEAL Champion in a vacant situation. It means you beat all other CHAMPIONS or titleholders.

The idea of Lineal titles was to trace the real champion back to the time of when there was just one belt.


Ring?? Is hardly any different than any alphabet strap. Now, I like Ring and find them to be overall more accurate in rankings than the orgs's overall. They are a MAGAZINE!!! Would "sporting news" or any other publication start naming their own champs with relevance???:nono Granted Ring has a boxing focus as opposed to other sports but the point is an outside publication doesnt have the right or meaning to call the shots/ Unfortunately, with the lack of centralized and proper management of the sport of boxing creates the situation where someone like RIng can look at the corrupt conditions of the ORG"S and say, we're more relevant or above that.

RING DOES NOT EQUAL LINEAL:nono :nono :nono If you care to do any research you'll find that those that track Lineal Champs also have issue with Ring's rankings and credibility, just as they do the orgs.


All in all?? If, I were say...PBF??? I'd be looking to UNIFY at 47 and leave a legacy statement in beating the other Champions, EVEN THOUGH HE IS ALREADY LINEAL!!!! Fighting the top opposition is what leaves lasting historical impressions and UNDIPUTED/UNIFIED is the top honor. The current issue with unification is that it doesnt include the WBO and these day's that org has some real champs which would be excluded on that basis. IMO, the BO should be included.

The problem's with LINEAL and Unification?? They are still subject to org bullshit through mis mandatories, sanctioning fees, and corrupt rankings in vacant situations and during the unification process. It will take a complete restructuring of Boxing itself to alleviate the issues.

[tryggve]

The linear title is the one that counts the man who beat the man etc. Why are you calling it lineal btw, im swedish and have better english than some born in english speaking countries amazing.

[barneyrub]

Undisputed. Because being undisputed means that you are the man to beat.

In 1997 did anyone really see George Foreman as the Champ even though he had the lineal belt? No. Evander Holyfield was considered the man. Lennox Lewis to some extent was considered the man. But George Foreman had the lineal belt.Becasue Foreman had beaten the lineal champion, Moorer.

[C Money]

The linear title is the one that counts the man who beat the man etc. Why are you calling it lineal btw, im swedish and have better english than some born in english speaking countries amazing.

Good 4 U!!!! Go find a grammar forum and celebrate:good

Linear is also subject to it's own issues when 9 of 17 title's are VACANT, so while its nice when it works, it would be more ideal if it worked MORE OFTEN:good

[barneyrub]

The linear title is the one that counts the man who beat the man etc. Why are you calling it lineal btw, im swedish and have better english than some born in english speaking countries amazing.Lineal is the correct term in the english language. The word linear though is being used commonly to mean the same thing but by definition in the English language it actually is wrong. It probably is the prevalent term in America where all sorts of words and spelling are used outwith standard english.

[C Money]

Lineal is the correct term in the english language. The word linear though is being used commonly to mean the same thing but by definition in the English language it actually is wrong. It probably is the prevalent term in America where all sorts of words and spelling are used outwith standard english.

ToMAYTO- To MATO, PoTAYTo- PaTAToe, IMO.

It's pretty much understood whats being referred to.

[Drew101]

For all intents and purposes, the Ring magazine and the lineal title are the same thing, and, usually, the crowning of a RING champion establishes lineage in a division where's there's a vacancy at the top position. This isn't always the case, but it tends to work out that way more often than not.

The problem with unification of the major belts is that the sanctioning organizations will usually strip the victorious fighter of the belts once that is achieved (case in point, Ricky Hatton, Isreal Vasquez, and Joel Casamyor), which means that it's less of an achievement to unify right now than it might have been in the past. Also, many organizations will strip a reiging champion of their belts if they decide to face another titleholder in the division (Corrles against Mayweather was just once example); a policy which only serves to limit of the credibility of the sanctioning bodies.

As it stands, the RING belt can only be won or lost inside the ring (or if the fighter chooses to relinquish the title). That, alone gives the RING infinitely more credibility than any of the other organizations out there.

And, because of the confusion that sometimes comes from a "lineal" title (the RJJ/DM situation was a classic example of this), it's generally less confusion to accept the RING champion as the champion of a particular division, imo.

[barneyrub]

ToMAYTO- To MATO, PoTAYTo- PaTAToe, IMO.

It's pretty much understood whats being referred to.yeah, i was addresing the swedish chaps question about the two words, to me it doesnt matter which term is used.

[kg0208]

For all intents and purposes, the Ring magazine and the lineal title are the same thing, and, usually, the crowning of a RING champion establishes lineage in a division where's there's a vacancy at the top position. This isn't always the case, but it tends to work out that way more often than not.

The problem with unification of the major belts is that the sanctioning organizations will usually strip the victorious fighter of the belts once that is achieved (case in point, Ricky Hatton, Isreal Vasquez, and Joel Casamyor), which means that it's less of an achievement to unify right now than it might have been in the past. Also, many organizations will strip a reiging champion of their belts if they decide to face another titleholder in the division (Corrles against Mayweather was just once example); a policy which only serves to limit of the credibility of the sanctioning bodies.

As it stands, the RING belt can only be won or lost inside the ring (or if the fighter chooses to relinquish the title). That, alone gives the RING infinitely more credibility than any of the other organizations out there.

And, because of the confusion that sometimes comes from a "lineal" title (the RJJ/DM situation was a classic example of this), it's generally less confusion to accept the RING champion as the champion of a particular division, imo.

Thus the problem with unification. Unifying the titles from fighters who didn't originally beat the belt holder for the belt because said belt holder was stripped kinda destroys it's validity.

I don't think anyone knows anymore who the true lineal champions are anymore since it's up to subjective processes that are constantly argued over not only here but by experts as well. Ring is currently the only title that is only lost in the ring or by retirement. It's rankings are subjective, but so are everyone elses.

[C Money]

Thus the problem with unification. Unifying the titles from fighters who didn't originally beat the belt holder for the belt because said belt holder was stripped kinda destroys it's validity.

I don't think anyone knows anymore who the true lineal champions are anymore since it's up to subjective processes that are constantly argued over not only here but by experts as well. Ring is currently the only title that is only lost in the ring or by retirement. It's rankings are subjective, but so are everyone elses.

A fighter once UNIFIED is the man to beat, regardless of wheteher he's stripped or not and is the same premise as saying a ring belt can only be lost in the ring.

The thing is RING is a magazine and while slightly more credible than the orgs which are supposed to be the "official" boxing bodies, they have their own issues as well from time to time and ARENT THE OR A CONTROLLING BODY. They have an arbitrary rankings process and it can be just as wrong or unfair at times.

ALl of this confusion, screams out the ridiculous nature of how boxing as a sport is mis-managed and one of the causes of decline in popularity and revenue.

Ring is NOT THE SAME AS LINEAL, if it is?? Why 9 vacancies in 17 divisions??? Ring doesnt hold any real weight moreso than an org. I do find them generally more in line with reason but replacing a vacancy with their 'title" is subject to the same BS as an org.

Unification means you beat the other champs that existed prior and thus MAKES YOU a Real undisputed Champ. Like i said the orgs can strip you but SO WHAT!!! Once you define it, you're then Lineal(as the imaginary 1,2 process occurs within) and that's that. Any real champion will fight/defend against the top guy's out there, and the rest will fall in place.

Look at PBF at 47, Lineal yes, but by facing the top opp he could UNIFY and become undisputed, by facing the best out there. Cotto, Williams, and Cintron are the other titleholders and SSM is clearly a legend and since DLH was so important?? SSM is more so, by being the better of the two.

[kg0208]

A fighter once UNIFIED is the man to beat, regardless of wheteher he's stripped or not and is the same premise as saying a ring belt can only be lost in the ring.

The thing is RING is a magazine and while slightly more credible than the orgs which are supposed to be the "official" boxing bodies, they have their own issues as well from time to time and ARENT THE OR A CONTROLLING BODY. They have an arbitrary rankings process and it can be just as wrong or unfair at times.

ALl of this confusion, screams out the ridiculous nature of how boxing as a sport is mis-managed and one of the causes of decline in popularity and revenue.

Ring is NOT THE SAME AS LINEAL, if it is?? Why 9 vacancies in 17 divisions??? Ring doesnt hold any real weight moreso than an org. I do find them generally more in line with reason but replacing a vacancy with their 'title" is subject to the same BS as an org.

Unification means you beat the other champs that existed prior and thus MAKES YOU a Real undisputed Champ. Like i said the orgs can strip you but SO WHAT!!! Once you define it, you're then Lineal(as the imaginary 1,2 process occurs within) and that's that. Any real champion will fight/defend against the top guy's out there, and the rest will fall in place.

Look at PBF at 47, Lineal yes, but by facing the top opp he could UNIFY and become undisputed, by facing the best out there. Cotto, Williams, and Cintron are the other titleholders and SSM is clearly a legend and since DLH was so important?? SSM is more so, by being the better of the two.

What are you on about?

Ring doesn't equal lineal and I haven't said it has.

Stripping the champions who held the belts and then someone unifying them against fighters who never won them in the first place taints the unification process. It's not about belts, it's about who the best fighters are. So when you say "who cares" about the stripping...well thats on you. I certainly don't agree with that.

As far as the 9 vacancies go....well, thats according to Cyberboxingzone.

You say they should fight the best fighters. I agree....but that doesn't vibe with stripping the best fighters of their belts and then unifying them.

[C Money]

What are you on about?

Ring doesn't equal lineal and I haven't said it has.

Stripping the champions who held the belts and then someone unifying them against fighters who never won them in the first place taints the unification process. It's not about belts, it's about who the best fighters are. So when you say "who cares" about the stripping...well thats on you. I certainly don't agree with that.

As far as the 9 vacancies go....well, thats according to Cyberboxingzone.

You say they should fight the best fighters. I agree....but that doesn't vibe with stripping the best fighters of their belts and then unifying them.

Easy there, "pal":lol: I'm just having some peaceful/reasonable discussion on this topic, something that is in the center of overall problems in the sport. I suppose, i should know better than to attempt it ,given our history, but SINCE much of that history, centers around this topic? It's kind of inevitable that our opinion's cross path's.

The point in that post IS that once UNIFIED they can strip all they want, they cant take you're real UNDISPUTED title. Again, fighting the best may often lead to fighting/defending against the fighters who claim the "stripped" belts, that is if anyone is doing their job and the best challengers are moving forward. Yet, the fighter who UNIFIED is still undisputed until he loses or retires.

AGAIN, unless the sport gets a major overhaul in the way its run?? We as fans must try to make some sense of who's what. IMO, UNDISPUTED is the highest honor obtainable.

I'd be interested in hearing the number of lineal vacancies that exist in you're perspective:think If it aint Ring(its not), then what is it??

[PolishPummler]

The Ring belt dont mean SHIT.

You can win it and NEVER have to defend against legit contenders.

[kg0208]

Easy there, "pal":lol: I'm just having some peaceful/reasonable discussion on this topic, something that is in the center of overall problems in the sport. I suppose, i should know better than to attempt it ,given our history, but SINCE much of that history, centers around this topic? It's kind of inevitable that our opinion's cross path's.

The point in that post IS that once UNIFIED they can strip all they want, they cant take you're real UNDISPUTED title. Again, fighting the best may often lead to fighting/defending against the fighters who claim the "stripped" belts, that is if anyone is doing their job and the best challengers are moving forward. Yet, the fighter who UNIFIED is still undisputed until he loses or retires.

AGAIN, unless the sport gets a major overhaul in the way its run?? We as fans must try to make some sense of who's what. IMO, UNDISPUTED is the highest honor obtainable.

I'd be interested in hearing the number of lineal vacancies that exist in you're perspective:think If it aint Ring(its not), then what is it??
Easy there? I don't recall saying anything derogatory in that post. I just have no idea why you started the post with something about the Ring title not being the Lineal title. I don't really care about our history, nor do I think you do....it's a message board and thats about the end of it.

You are right, you cannot strip a unified champion...he is undisputed even after he is stripped, much like Taylor is now at MW. I don't like however when the titles are unified and the best fighter is clearly left out of the picture because he was stripped. For me, it taints the unification process.

I would need to do some research before giving an actual # on the Lineal Vacancies. But look at this....we don't agree on how the lineal title is won, at least not in whole. But I noticed something interesting about Cyberboxingzone...and it's why I am no longer looking to them as a source.

The 130lb title PBF won is odd. He is considered Lineal for beating Hernandez. Hernandez won his from Nelson in 97 I think. But Nelson...he was simply the WBC champion. According to the site, they literally "awarded" him the Lineal title even though he didn't beat another champion....in fact he was the WBC champion for years before they suddenly award him the Lineal status...no explanation yet as to why and what caused this. Things like this make me feel uncomfortable with them as a source.

I also don't agree with Calzaghe being the Lineal champion...and he is according to them. He wouldn't be champion by EITHER of our methods. He never beat #2 and he didn't unify.

[TBooze]

Lineage or the Ring are merely forms of alphabet crap. Indeed the Ring in the past has taken money off of DKP to rate King fighters.

You need a legitmate base to become Champion of the World; there is no set formula, people need to use their own judgement.

[kg0208]

Lineage or the Ring are merely forms of alphabet crap. Indeed the Ring in the past has taken money off of DKP to rate King fighters.

You need a legitmate base to become Champion of the World; there is no set formula, people need to use their own judgement.
Ring did that decades ago....I doubt it is run the same way or by the same people. You cannot hold that over their heads forever.

[ripcity]

So you're telling me that Hatton and Casamayor aren't current "real" Champions? :think


Fuck the four ABC pseudo-titles, the Champs can exist without them and are still Champs, and can only lose that title in the ring.

As far as I know Hatton and Casamayor were not undisputed champions.
We do not have a perfict system otherwise Hatton and Cassamayor would still have their tittles.
I will say this about my opion on this matter. It is based on how things are and not how it should be.
There should be one champion and a way to make that championships are defended on a regular basses aganst topthe best compotion.

[TBooze]

Ring did that decades ago....I doubt it is run the same way or by the same people. You cannot hold that over their heads forever.

Panama Lewis and Luis Resto have not helped a fighter kill himself for the last 23 years... Perhaps they should get their licences back?

You can forgive, but never forget... The Ring under Fleischer and then with the US Boxing Championships tainted itself forever.

[kg0208]

Panama Lewis and Luis Resto have not helped a fighter kill himself for the last 23 years... Perhaps they should get their licences back?

You can forgive, but never forget... The Ring under Fleischer and then with the US Boxing Championships tainted itself forever.

Death is permanent.

Ring screwed up and has since done a decent job of accounting for itself. You cannot forever taint yourself in those types of situations. Someone who kills someone will have always killed someone. An organization can change and make amends especially when given a new direction by new people.

That's like saying that if a football team was bad 20 yrs ago they will be bad now. It doesn't make sense.

[SgrRyLeonard]

More often than not, the Ring Belt IS the Lineal Belt. However, for those few cases where it isn't , the lineal belt is better.

[C Money]

Easy there? I don't recall saying anything derogatory in that post. I just have no idea why you started the post with something about the Ring title not being the Lineal title. I don't really care about our history, nor do I think you do....it's a message board and thats about the end of it.

You are right, you cannot strip a unified champion...he is undisputed even after he is stripped, much like Taylor is now at MW. I don't like however when the titles are unified and the best fighter is clearly left out of the picture because he was stripped. For me, it taints the unification process.

I would need to do some research before giving an actual # on the Lineal Vacancies. But look at this....we don't agree on how the lineal title is won, at least not in whole. But I noticed something interesting about Cyberboxingzone...and it's why I am no longer looking to them as a source.

The 130lb title PBF won is odd. He is considered Lineal for beating Hernandez. Hernandez won his from Nelson in 97 I think. But Nelson...he was simply the WBC champion. According to the site, they literally "awarded" him the Lineal title even though he didn't beat another champion....in fact he was the WBC champion for years before they suddenly award him the Lineal status...no explanation yet as to why and what caused this. Things like this make me feel uncomfortable with them as a source.

I also don't agree with Calzaghe being the Lineal champion...and he is according to them. He wouldn't be champion by EITHER of our methods. He never beat #2 and he didn't unify.

You started off with "what am i going on about" with Ring not being lineal. My point was you have previously tried to assert that PBF was Lineal at 35 and Ring was the one who deemed it so, between PBF and JLC. Hence Ring doesnt equal lineal!! Its merely civil discussion, it would better if we kept it that way, would you not agree?? I'm fairly certain you would.

As to you're point in stripping, I'm not sure I understand it clearly. The only way to leave the best fighter out of a unification process is if that fighter is the WBO Champ, because by Ring/accepted definition its the BA, BC, BF. So at 68, Kessler could unify WITHOUT FIGHTING Calzaghe and would indeed leave the regarded "best SMW" out. Which is one of the examples of why I favor including the BO. If that's done, I cant see any way the best man is left out. You could make a case for some rising fighter who had yet to win a belt perhaps, but his path would be clear, fight the UNDISPUTED fighter. Perhaps capturing a stripped title helps get that recognition and pushes his case to fight the real champ.


As for the LINEAL process to replace vacancies, the 1,2 of whomever, wherever, would be in the unification process especially, if the BO included. Ultimately, UNDISPUTED means more IMO.

As for Czone?? Yes, I have had debates with them prior to anything between you and I, and as stated, only brought the site into the picture to refute any claim of PBF being Lineal at 35. I find it hilarious that the same writer whom I debated, and whom writes for the site, stated PBF was Lineal at 35 in a article of his own which, you posted to refute my point. Ring says he was, so it was? But it still isnt seen that way, because overall views of that site disagree with Ring and apparently HIM as well:lol: It's the kind of catch 22 mentality that exists in the site. Though I'll say again, i respect that writer even though I find his/their stance at odds with each other and UNCLEAR and I still assert PBF wasnt lineal at 35. As we know, they dont define the mysterious 1,2 process. It seems you are now touching on other flaws after further examination. Could it be????? Floyd's held only 1 LINEAL TITLE???:rofl Ahh...the humanity:lol: It keeps getting BETTER:yep They gave nelson credit in 1996, for beating Ruelas or Leija, not sure which.

Another example with Calzaghe. One could suppose it's easy to claim what you like, when the 1,2 process isnt defined clearly, I suppose.

I've always said that Lineal is a notch above an org strap, IMO, but I'll take unification any day, it's more meaningful. Also, they'll have a vacancy replaced, one way or the other THROUGH THAT PROCESS:good

[deram]

That #3 vs. #1 for the vacant title also happened with an African vs. a European for the HW title in 2004.

What other occassions besides Lacy-Calzaghe did they have the #1 vs. #3 for the vacant title with an American?

Doesn't have to have an American passport. The important thing is that there has to be American interests involved. In other words someone fighting out of the US, managed in the US etc. The Ring is not pushed by fighters themselves to do these things. Fighters rarely have or use those tactics... their managers and promoters do.

[kg0208]

You started off with "what am i going on about" with Ring not being lineal. My point was you have previously tried to assert that PBF was Lineal at 35 and Ring was the one who deemed it so, between PBF and JLC. Hence Ring doesnt equal lineal!! Its merely civil discussion, it would better if we kept it that way, would you not agree?? I'm fairly certain you would.

As to you're point in stripping, I'm not sure I understand it clearly. The only way to leave the best fighter out of a unification process is if that fighter is the WBO Champ, because by Ring/accepted definition its the BA, BC, BF. So at 68, Kessler could unify WITHOUT FIGHTING Calzaghe and would indeed leave the regarded "best SMW" out. Which is one of the examples of why I favor including the BO. If that's done, I cant see any way the best man is left out. You could make a case for some rising fighter who had yet to win a belt perhaps, but his path would be clear, fight the UNDISPUTED fighter. Perhaps capturing a stripped title helps get that recognition and pushes his case to fight the real champ.


As for the LINEAL process to replace vacancies, the 1,2 of whomever, wherever, would be in the unification process especially, if the BO included. Ultimately, UNDISPUTED means more IMO.

As for Czone?? Yes, I have had debates with them prior to anything between you and I, and as stated, only brought the site into the picture to refute any claim of PBF being Lineal at 35. I find it hilarious that the same writer whom I debated, and whom writes for the site, stated PBF was Lineal at 35 in a article of his own which, you posted to refute my point. Ring says he was, so it was? But it still isnt seen that way, because overall views of that site disagree with Ring and apparently HIM as well:lol: It's the kind of catch 22 mentality that exists in the site. Though I'll say again, i respect that writer even though I find his/their stance at odds with each other and UNCLEAR and I still assert PBF wasnt lineal at 35. As we know, they dont define the mysterious 1,2 process. It seems you are now touching on other flaws after further examination. Could it be????? Floyd's held only 1 LINEAL TITLE???:rofl Ahh...the humanity:lol: It keeps getting BETTER:yep They gave nelson credit in 1996, for beating Ruelas or Leija, not sure which.

Another example with Calzaghe. One could suppose it's easy to claim what you like, when the 1,2 process isnt defined clearly, I suppose.

I've always said that Lineal is a notch above an org strap, IMO, but I'll take unification any day, it's more meaningful. Also, they'll have a vacancy replaced, one way or the other THROUGH THAT PROCESS:good

The issue at hand of leaving out the best fighter during unification involves other fighters besides the WBO champion. Currently, most consider Casamayor the true champion of 135 due to his win over Corrales. But he was stripped by the WBC for trying to unify. So if someone unifies all 4 belts, they would never fight Casamayor. To me, that taints the process.

I said that PBF was considered Lineal because of articles and sources I had read that considered him such, and those had nothing to do with the Ring title. At the time of our original debate, I couldn't find the articles. I have since found 2 of them and they claim he was lineal. You have sources that claim he was not champion. Obviously we also have different beliefs in the process which grants the title. So we are never going to agree on this and their seems to be different sources claiming different things (I found one that claimed he was 135 and 147 champ, but not 130...that's what prompted me to look at the 130 title on CBZ). In all honesty, I am beginning to doubt the validity of the Lineal titles altogether....perhaps the Undisputed title and the Ring titles are the only ones I will focus on until there can be a clear answer on the lineal titles.

[kg0208]

Doesn't have to have an American passport. The important thing is that there has to be American interests involved. In other words someone fighting out of the US, managed in the US etc. The Ring is not pushed by fighters themselves to do these things. Fighters rarely have or use those tactics... their managers and promoters do.

That's kind of a reach.

[rekcutnevets]

I think that unifications only play into the alphabet organization's hands at the moment. These organizations will still have different top contender's, and still force title splits. Some will even add more champions, like the WBA, in the same weight division as the unified champion. These organizations should rank the title holders of other organizations as contenders. This way, maybe unified champs could occur more often.

[Only registered and activated users can see links] is a site that may be on the right track. I just wish they would update more often. If enough people got behind an organization like this, I think that things could change for the positive.

As far as lineal titles go, I don't think they mean all that much. Sometimes the champ retires, and a new champ has to be appointed. That kills the person who beat the person, who beat the person, kind of thing.

[C Money]

The issue at hand of leaving out the best fighter during unification involves other fighters besides the WBO champion. Currently, most consider Casamayor the true champion of 135 due to his win over Corrales. But he was stripped by the WBC for trying to unify. So if someone unifies all 4 belts, they would never fight Casamayor. To me, that taints the process.

I said that PBF was considered Lineal because of articles and sources I had read that considered him such, and those had nothing to do with the Ring title. At the time of our original debate, I couldn't find the articles. I have since found 2 of them and they claim he was lineal. You have sources that claim he was not champion. Obviously we also have different beliefs in the process which grants the title. So we are never going to agree on this and their seems to be different sources claiming different things (I found one that claimed he was 135 and 147 champ, but not 130...that's what prompted me to look at the 130 title on CBZ). In all honesty, I am beginning to doubt the validity of the Lineal titles altogether....perhaps the Undisputed title and the Ring titles are the only ones I will focus on until there can be a clear answer on the lineal titles.

Ok. I now understand where you're coming from with stripping and agree that it's yet another way for the ORGS to prevent any form of CLARITY. Obviously, they cant have that:lol: It's much harder to pull corrupt or whatever type of shit they want, when the public has a defined Champ in front of them. It's yet another issue POINTING towards REFORM being the only way to IMPROVE BOXING!!! I hate to use the term "save" because the greatness of the sport has endured over a century and nearly every form of BULLSHIT and CORRUPTION possible and is still ALIVE and fighting:bbb vs :bbb .

So that leaves me, to say THE BEST FIGHTING THE BEST is the only mantra that will PROVE OUT a true and respected ATG Champion. Unfortunately, given the landscape many fighters will opt to play a long with the ORG's and their shit, TO GET PAID. When confronted with Money vs REspect?? Respect will most often take the BACK SEAT!! Hence PBF SYNDROME, cherry pick, talk shit, get paid, and duck as much outside the ring as you do INSIDE:good A real Champion should seek out the top fighters regardless of belt.

Personally, I DETEST SUCH SHIT!!! I cant for the life of me, figure out why the powers that be, cant come to the realization that running things RIGHT, is far better and MORE PROFITABLE in the long run for everyone involved. Guy's like Floyd who claim to "be the best" only make a MOCKERY of true greatness that has littered the history of this grand sport. Kind of like claiming to be LINEAL and flat out ducking another titlelist WHO HANDED YOU YOU'RE ASS ON A PLATTER for calling out and disrespecting him in the gym.:-( :-( Ring was the one who deemed PBF vs Castillo the resultant Linear Champ, there isnt any other credible or possible source for such info:good


As for LIneal?? I truly dont care if we agree on the process. What most like about the idea is it represented a way to track back to the day's when there was ONLY 1. One real Champion is what the public seeks and said Champion defending against the best challengers ensures that greatness continues. I always said UNIFICATION was more important and of higher honor and nothing to date has changed that. You have however pointed out yet another way to FUCK UP that process through "stripping ahead of time":-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-(


As for Ring??? Again, I like Ring but I still have problems handing "control" to any one organization that ISNT IN CONTROL of what happens in the sport and cant impose any regualtion of such. To me, they are just another ORG, perhaps the most respectable, but NOT THE BE ALL. There will always be too much shit happening when the "respected source" cant regulate.

Not sure if you caught tonights FNF in which studio host Brian Kenney sat down with Marvin Hagler and Oscar de La Hoya and posed the question of Ring belt legitimacy. DLH sang a splooging, glowing review of Ring Belt and Hagler said If there's another belt out there, I'm gonna want that too. So, the picture is as CLEAR AS MUD. Side Note: when asked of DlH's plans at 47, he said "my wife will decide what happens next and I'm waiting for some chips to fall in place:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: " His wife??:rofl :rofl Much respect to the lady, but I wasnt aware that she was that much of aficianado:hey Also when asked about a rematch with PBF?? DLH said I'd fight him again, if we could fight in a phone booth:lol: Credit to Kenny who said "the test will come for you Oscar when you promote a fight that carrys' an ORG belt and whether you trump it as a world championship fight." Oscar basically said he would because it's still important to the fighter. So much for CLARITY!!!:yep :yep :yep :lol:

[C Money]

I think that unifications only play into the alphabet organization's hands at the moment. These organizations will still have different top contender's, and still force title splits. Some will even add more champions, like the WBA, in the same weight division as the unified champion. These organizations should rank the title holders of other organizations as contenders. This way, maybe unified champs could occur more often.

[Only registered and activated users can see links] is a site that may be on the right track. I just wish they would update more often. If enough people got behind an organization like this, I think that things could change for the positive.

As far as lineal titles go, I don't think they mean all that much. Sometimes the champ retires, and a new champ has to be appointed. That kills the person who beat the person, who beat the person, kind of thing.

Replacements werent appointed so to speak, they were either the #1,2 fighters squaring off with NO CLEAR WAY TO TRACK OR KNOW who those top fighters were or UNIFIED CHAMPIONS.

There seems ONLY 1 guarantee, fucking up the sport of boxing for profit and petty infighting reasons is the way it goes. The current culture is fucked and dangling the $$$$$$$$$ opportunities is the way to railroad fighters into playing a long.

Unless, there's major reform?? The BS will continue and the growth and greatness of this sport will continue to be stifled.:-(