Re: Is Linear Championship as prestigious than the alphabets?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SweetPea
The Ring Magazine belts are the ONLY ones that matter.
I couldn't even tell you who owns the WBC, WBA, IBF in any of the divisions, because they're completely worthless.
I'm with you bro, the alphabets don't exist to me!
As for Jones/ Dariusz me & Mick had a long debate awhile back. Mick said cause Hill & Maske fought that created a linear champ but I disagreed because Jones had fought in the division before that fight occurred so Hill & Maske weren't the 2 best fighters in the division. From there Jones put all 3 belts together something Dariusz didn't (even if he was stripped unfairly he didn't get Jones part) so in my eyes Jones has more claim to the LH linear title than Dariusz.
Re: Is Linear Championship as prestigious than the alphabets?
The alphabet titles have been diluted to the point of being Irrelevant.Love the Rings mind set.They are cutting teeth also with the "Technical" point of view.Do any of us actually believe Casamayor "beat" Santa-Cruz ? Confounded record books lol. The networks do not need the Championship banner any more to push a fight.
Re: Is Linear Championship as prestigious than the alphabets?
Its really hard to track the linear championship if we consider close decisions/robberries :(
so eventhough the majority of stakes holders thinks that Cassamayor lost. he didnt get the L that should have transafered the title.
PAC should take on Cassa after Diaz. IF he wins that's 3 linear titles in 3 different division ( FLy, Feather, Lighweight )
Re: Is Linear Championship as prestigious than the alphabets?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miron_lang
Its really hard to track the linear championship if we consider close decisions/robberries :(
so eventhough the majority of stakes holders thinks that Cassamayor lost. he didnt get the L that should have transafered the title.
PAC should take on Cassa after Diaz. IF he wins that's 3 linear titles in 3 different division ( FLy, Feather, Lighweight )
He's gotta get past Marquez 1st... one step at a time.
History is littered with bad decisions, some involving the greatest fighters ever. The only way to keep consistency is to go with the W. We may not like it or agree with it but that is how it will be seen by history
Re: Is Linear Championship as prestigious than the alphabets?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Galaxy
He's gotta get past Marquez 1st... one step at a time.
you're right JMM is a very dangerous fighter i got carried away ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Galaxy
History is littered with bad decisions, some involving the greatest fighters ever. The only way to keep consistency is to go with the W. We may not like it or agree with it but that is how it will be seen by history
I agree
Re: Is Linear Championship as prestigious than the alphabets?
To be linear champ is to unify all the alphabet titles until you do that I see you as only a titleholder or contender.
Or you can beat the man who has unified the belts.
thats how I see it anyway.
Re: Is Linear Championship as prestigious than the alphabets?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miron_lang
Is Linear Championship as prestigious as the alphabets?
-I cant edit the title :(
Cassamayor is the linear lightweight champion but Nate Campbel after conqering Juan Diaz has the Belts.
So do you think that the Linear Championships is as Prestigious as the WBC, WBA and IBF?
It is...but in the lightweight division, there is only one champion in my eyes. Casamayor clearly lost to Santa Cruz, David Diaz clearly lost to Morales. So Campbell is the only one I can respect as champion.
Re: Is Linear Championship as prestigious than the alphabets?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miron_lang
Its really hard to track the linear championship if we consider close decisions/robberries :(
so eventhough the majority of stakes holders thinks that Cassamayor lost. he didnt get the L that should have transafered the title.
PAC should take on Cassa after Diaz. IF he wins that's 3 linear titles in 3 different division ( FLy, Feather, Lighweight )
Isn't Marquez-Pac for the linear Super Feather?
Re: Is Linear Championship as prestigious than the alphabets?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Doot
To be linear champ is to unify all the alphabet titles until you do that I see you as only a titleholder or contender.
Or you can beat the man who has unified the belts.
thats how I see it anyway.
No, not exactly. You can trace a lineage to champions back to the time before boxing got broken up into a million sanctioning bodies. BUT - if a lineal champ retires or vacates without being beaten - aka Lewis - the lineage ends and can only be renewed by unifying. In some divisions, where there was never a single champ, like SMW, the lineage doesn't get created until unification occurs, ie, Calzaghe just became the first to unify SMW. He became the ring champ and he has established a lineage. Now that lineage might die, unless he comes back down to 168 after the Hopkins fight.
Re: Is Linear Championship as prestigious than the alphabets?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bzkfn
It is...but in the lightweight division, there is only one champion in my eyes. Casamayor clearly lost to Santa Cruz, David Diaz clearly lost to Morales. So Campbell is the only one I can respect as champion.
But Casamayor got the decision so remained champion, if you want to got against that then you have to do the same to all the other bad decisions throughout history. Going by what the record book says is the only logical way. You may respect Campbell as the best fighter in the division but he is not the champion... you have to beat the man to be the man!
Re: Is Linear Championship as prestigious than the alphabets?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RozzySean
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Doot
To be linear champ is to unify all the alphabet titles until you do that I see you as only a titleholder or contender.
Or you can beat the man who has unified the belts.
thats how I see it anyway.
No, not exactly. You can trace a lineage to champions back to the time before boxing got broken up into a million sanctioning bodies. BUT - if a lineal champ retires or vacates without being beaten - aka Lewis - the lineage ends and can only be renewed by unifying. In some divisions, where there was never a single champ, like SMW, the lineage doesn't get created until unification occurs, ie, Calzaghe just became the first to unify SMW. He became the ring champ and he has established a lineage. Now that lineage might die, unless he comes back down to 168 after the Hopkins fight.
The Ring championship policy:
Championship vacancies can be filled by winning a box-off between The Ring’s number-one and number-two contenders, or, in certain instances, a box-off between our number-one and number-three contenders.
Calzaghe became champion by fighting Lacy. Casamayor's lineage can be traced back to Castillo & Lazcano fighting for the vacant title when Mayweather moved up.
Re: Is Linear Championship as prestigious than the alphabets?
Re: Is Linear Championship as prestigious than the alphabets?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bzkfn
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miron_lang
Its really hard to track the linear championship if we consider close decisions/robberries :(
so eventhough the majority of stakes holders thinks that Cassamayor lost. he didnt get the L that should have transafered the title.
PAC should take on Cassa after Diaz. IF he wins that's 3 linear titles in 3 different division ( FLy, Feather, Lighweight )
Isn't Marquez-Pac for the linear Super Feather?
I think so. my mistake that makes it 4 if he gets the lightweight title
Re: Is Linear Championship as prestigious than the alphabets?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miron_lang
So do you think that the Linear Championships is as Prestigious as the WBC, WBA and IBF?
Anything is more prestigious than the alphabet titles.
Re: Is Linear Championship as prestigious than the alphabets?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SweetPea
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miron_lang
So do you think that the Linear Championships is as Prestigious as the WBC, WBA and IBF?
Anything is more prestigious than the alphabet titles.
Exactly. Alphabet titles are a thing of the past. We are heading back to a time where champions can only lose their titles in the ring. ala The Ring Magazine.
Look at Dawson dropping his WBC trinket like the garbage that it is, in order to take a more meaningful fight.
