Re: Is Linear Championship as prestigious than the alphabets?
This must have been the quickest poll answer Ive ever given ... linear every day of the week for me ...
:badass::badass::badass:
Re: Is Linear Championship as prestigious than the alphabets?
So you are arguing that Nigel Collins is "All knowing"?
You thing because "The Ring Magizine" sounds like they have a method which is fair and argue the others are unfair that "The Ring Magizine" is more valid. You obviously didn't put much thought into the meaning of the word "subjective". All Opinions are "subjective".
It doesn't matter "who" says it or what belt "A" Champion holds or doesn't hold. Opinions are not wrong! they are just opinions. Every argument can have valid points and be articulated so that they appear correct. Just because someone can argue better or shout louder doesn't mean they are right or wrong. It just means they have a different opinion.
By "your" argument "The Ring Magazine" does the exact same thing as the alphabets gangs. They only have an opinion not tangable proof.
Let us put "your" crazy argument into a current example: Saying that JMM is "The" World Lightweight Champion because of linage is simply absurd. He beat (1) fighter in the lightweight class. Who else did he beat in the Lightweight class? no one! He lost to MP and he never fought NC or YK . He has to beat every "Contender" and every "Champion" in the "Lightweight Weight Class" to "PROVE" and be "The" " Lightweight World Champion". The term "Linear Champion" has no more validity than does WBC, WBA, WBO, IBF or IBO. it just means that the followers of the respective organization "believe" that the Boxer at the top of their list is A "Champion".
The only way a Champion can be "World Champion" is to defeat all "Champions" and all "Contenders" otherwise his status as a Champion is "DISPUTED".
What really matters is that EVERYONE agrees. And ONLY then, will you have the "UNDISPUTED Champion of the World".
Re: Is Linear Championship as prestigious than the alphabets?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
fan johnny
So you are arguing that Nigel Collins is "All knowing"?
You thing because "The Ring Magizine" sounds like they have a method which is fair and argue the others are unfair that "The Ring Magizine" is more valid. You obviously didn't put much thought into the meaning of the word "subjective". All Opinions are "subjective".
It doesn't matter "who" says it or what belt "A" Champion holds or doesn't hold. Opinions are not wrong! they are just opinions. Every argument can have valid points and be articulated so that they appear correct. Just because someone can argue better or shout louder doesn't mean they are right or wrong. It just means they have a different opinion.
By "your" argument "The Ring Magazine" does the exact same thing as the alphabets gangs. They only have an opinion not tangable proof.
Let us put "your" crazy argument into a current example: Saying that JMM is "The" World Lightweight Champion because of linage is simply absurd. He beat (1) fighter in the lightweight class. Who else did he beat in the Lightweight class? no one! He lost to MP and he never fought NC or YK . He has to beat every "Contender" and every "Champion" in the "Lightweight Weight Class" to "PROVE" and be "The" " Lightweight World Champion". The term "Linear Champion" has no more validity than does WBC, WBA, WBO, IBF or IBO. it just means that the followers of the respective organization "believe" that the Boxer at the top of their list is A "Champion".
The only way a Champion can be "World Champion" is to defeat all "Champions" and all "Contenders" otherwise his status as a Champion is "DISPUTED".
What really matters is that EVERYONE agrees. And ONLY then, will you have the "UNDISPUTED Champion of the World".
I dont think you understand the way boxing used to work. Along time a go before you were born, before the alphabet titles were payed attention to, there was 1 champion per weight class.
That champion was the man who beat the last champion. Boxing was huge, and it was mainstream sport in american. Just like everyone knew who won the superbowl or the world series champs were, every knew who the boxing champions were.
Then came the alphabet gangs to create numerous nonsense paper titles. Now no one knows who the champions are and boxing is at most, a niche sport.
The Ring is trying to bring back the old bright line rule about champions.
And although you seem fixated on Nigel Collins, he is only the editor. He only has a say, as do all the other expert journalist who determine the rankings.
This is a better option then you beloved alphabet gangs, which give out rankings, not based on merit, but sanctioning fees.
Re: Is Linear Championship as prestigious than the alphabets?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
fan johnny
So you are arguing that Nigel Collins is "All knowing"?
You thing because "The Ring Magizine" sounds like they have a method which is fair and argue the others are unfair that "The Ring Magizine" is more valid. You obviously didn't put much thought into the meaning of the word "subjective". All Opinions are "subjective".
It doesn't matter "who" says it or what belt "A" Champion holds or doesn't hold. Opinions are not wrong! they are just opinions. Every argument can have valid points and be articulated so that they appear correct. Just because someone can argue better or shout louder doesn't mean they are right or wrong. It just means they have a different opinion.
By "your" argument "The Ring Magazine" does the exact same thing as the alphabets gangs. They only have an opinion not tangable proof.
Let us put "your" crazy argument into a current example: Saying that JMM is "The" World Lightweight Champion because of linage is simply absurd. He beat (1) fighter in the lightweight class. Who else did he beat in the Lightweight class? no one! He lost to MP and he never fought NC or YK . He has to beat every "Contender" and every "Champion" in the "Lightweight Weight Class" to "PROVE" and be "The" " Lightweight World Champion". The term "Linear Champion" has no more validity than does WBC, WBA, WBO, IBF or IBO. it just means that the followers of the respective organization "believe" that the Boxer at the top of their list is A "Champion".
The only way a Champion can be "World Champion" is to defeat all "Champions" and all "Contenders" otherwise his status as a Champion is "DISPUTED".
What really matters is that EVERYONE agrees. And ONLY then, will you have the "UNDISPUTED Champion of the World".
He beat the guy that was the champ, doesn't matter who he did or didn't face in the interim. You are never going to have a situation where everyone agrees. And to say that a champion has to face all contenders is absolutely ridiculous. There will always be a new contender on the rise and only so many times one can fight in a year. Who in your lifetime was a "World Champion"? Give me an example.
Re: Is Linear Championship as prestigious than the alphabets?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lance Uppercut
Quote:
Originally Posted by
antimoron
Quote:
Originally Posted by
boozeboxer
and the greatest boxer EVER. Knocked out a prime castillo with the best body shot EVER.
Prime castillo??? i don't think so mate.. He knocked an old castillo who was battling the weigh-ins than the actual fight.
Hey antimoron, I think he was using something that us morons like to call sarcasm. ;)
Lance I miss you. Every thread is ohw the alpha belts are corrupt. :)
Re: Is Linear Championship as prestigious than the alphabets?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
boozeboxer
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lance Uppercut
Quote:
Originally Posted by
antimoron
Prime castillo??? i don't think so mate.. He knocked an old castillo who was battling the weigh-ins than the actual fight.
Hey antimoron, I think he was using something that us morons like to call sarcasm. ;)
Lance I miss you. Every thread is ohw the alpha belts are corrupt. :)
what are you talking about? I am right here. And your right, the alphabet gangs are corrupt.
Re: Is Linear Championship as prestigious than the alphabets?
"He beat the guy that was the champ, doesn't matter who he did or didn't face in the interim. You are never going to have a situation where everyone agrees. And to say that a champion has to face all contenders is absolutely ridiculous. There will always be a new contender on the rise and only so many times one can fight in a year. Who in your lifetime was a "World Champion"? Give me an example."
Yea, your right, maybe not every contender, but your statement just reinforces my point! "Read it!"
Linage is often broken: Example: List of current world boxing champions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia You can't continue the line without measuring the contenders. When you look at this list you will see that of the 17 weight classes, 10 have no "Ring" Champions. Oh? so this is what mean? Does this mean that Antonio Margarito is not a real world champion because he doesn't have a linear win on his record?
"The Ring Champion is just a pacifier for the cry babies that don't have a real belt from any of the private sanctioning bodies." Who said that?
For you edification:
Undisputed Champion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Every boxer listed has been in my lifetime. Example:
List of undisputed boxing champions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Professional boxing is evolving.