Juan Manuel Marquez Tells Pacquiao To His Face Floyd Would Kick His Ass On ESPN First

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TysonBomb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imp

Well darius must be the true p4p champ then. Roy didnt have time to weight for darius he was to busy winning heavyweight championships..was that less of a risk?

Darius was to busy trying to be next rocky marciano while roy was making history in multi weight divisons.

Roy already got the worst decision in history at the olympics you cant blame him for not wanting to travel when the most money can be made in america.

And lets not talk common opponents between these two as im sure its apparent who had the harder road..!

---

Roy couldn't wait for him? Michalczewski was lineal champ from 97 to 2003, Roy was a lightheavy from 97 to 2003 before facing Ruiz. And that heavyweight title is meaningless too, Lewis was the lineal champ, Ruiz just had a belt Lewis discarded.

P4P is decided by peoples opinion. There are no certainties or facts involved. You can be regarded the best fighter in the world and not even be a legit champion.

And having a bad decision go against you doesn't mean you get a free pass from ever leaving home again. Millions of fighters have been "robbed."

---

Fenster,

Moving up to heavyweight was still a great achievement regardless of the belt.

You already said you think roy was the better fighter and the mythical p4p best..why is there a need to make out roy ducked or feared darius?..we know the big money is in the states.

How is this relevant to marquez saying that floyd would beat pac.

---

Roy beating Ruiz was a good achivement I wouldn't call it great.

I never even came close to saying Roy ducked Darius. I was pointing out who the correct champion was, therefore to simply dismiss the lesser known guy based in Germany as the villain for not travelling is bogus. That's all.

---

Roy had about 8 titles when Dariusz had the lineal title and the WBO strap

8>2

Virgil Hill never beat Spinks for the lineal title, hence the chain of succession was broken and restarted with Hill winning that title in an elimination bout. Dariusz beat Hill for the linear title by decision. Roy then beat Hill in a more convincing, spectacular fashion via KO.

Roy Jones Jr. was the man at LHW.

---

Roy had belts that Michalczewski had already won and discarded or been stripped of through politics. He didn't lose them in the ring.

What belts were those?

When a lineage is broken it only gets restarted when the universally recognised no.1 and 2 meet.

Another crock of shit. There is no such thing as lineal in this era or Roys because there are no undisputed champions.

Hill (WBA champ) and Maske (IBF) unified to establish THE man at 175 (they were recognised as the top two in the division). The WBC champion was Fabrice Tiozzo who Hill had already beat. Roy hadn't even fought in the division at this point.

Then why chastise him?

Hill beat Maske to become THE man. He then lost to Michalczewski who was stripped/chucked the WBA and IBF titles. The titles were now utterly irrelevant because a CLEAR champion was established.

How can these titles both be relevant and not relevant at the same time?

A hundred alaphbet titles don't mean shit compared with lineage. It's the only pure way of having a true champion, regardless of whether or not people think he's the best in the division.

This lineage you speak of is a myth directly and indirectly. One of the biggest crocks in modern day boxing.

And you actually said that.

---

Yes thats right. I commented inside the quote and was told my post was to short.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IamInuit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TysonBomb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imp

Well darius must be the true p4p champ then. Roy didnt have time to weight for darius he was to busy winning heavyweight championships..was that less of a risk?

Darius was to busy trying to be next rocky marciano while roy was making history in multi weight divisons.

Roy already got the worst decision in history at the olympics you cant blame him for not wanting to travel when the most money can be made in america.

And lets not talk common opponents between these two as im sure its apparent who had the harder road..!

---

Roy couldn't wait for him? Michalczewski was lineal champ from 97 to 2003, Roy was a lightheavy from 97 to 2003 before facing Ruiz. And that heavyweight title is meaningless too, Lewis was the lineal champ, Ruiz just had a belt Lewis discarded.

P4P is decided by peoples opinion. There are no certainties or facts involved. You can be regarded the best fighter in the world and not even be a legit champion.

And having a bad decision go against you doesn't mean you get a free pass from ever leaving home again. Millions of fighters have been "robbed."

---

Fenster,

Moving up to heavyweight was still a great achievement regardless of the belt.

You already said you think roy was the better fighter and the mythical p4p best..why is there a need to make out roy ducked or feared darius?..we know the big money is in the states.

How is this relevant to marquez saying that floyd would beat pac.

---

Roy beating Ruiz was a good achivement I wouldn't call it great.

I never even came close to saying Roy ducked Darius. I was pointing out who the correct champion was, therefore to simply dismiss the lesser known guy based in Germany as the villain for not travelling is bogus. That's all.

---

Roy had about 8 titles when Dariusz had the lineal title and the WBO strap

8>2

Virgil Hill never beat Spinks for the lineal title, hence the chain of succession was broken and restarted with Hill winning that title in an elimination bout. Dariusz beat Hill for the linear title by decision. Roy then beat Hill in a more convincing, spectacular fashion via KO.

Roy Jones Jr. was the man at LHW.

---

Roy had belts that Michalczewski had already won and discarded or been stripped of through politics. He didn't lose them in the ring.

What belts were those?

When a lineage is broken it only gets restarted when the universally recognised no.1 and 2 meet.

Another crock of shit. There is no such thing as lineal in this era or Roys because there are no undisputed champions.

Hill (WBA champ) and Maske (IBF) unified to establish THE man at 175 (they were recognised as the top two in the division). The WBC champion was Fabrice Tiozzo who Hill had already beat. Roy hadn't even fought in the division at this point.

Then why chastise him?

Hill beat Maske to become THE man. He then lost to Michalczewski who was stripped/chucked the WBA and IBF titles. The titles were now utterly irrelevant because a CLEAR champion was established.

How can these titles both be relevant and not relevant at the same time?

A hundred alaphbet titles don't mean shit compared with lineage. It's the only pure way of having a true champion, regardless of whether or not people think he's the best in the division.

This lineage you speak of is a myth directly and indirectly. One of the biggest crocks in modern day boxing.

And you actually said that.

---

Yes thats right. I commented inside the quote and was told my post was to short.

---

There were TWO lineal champions in from 2002-2003 in the LHW division

Roy was "The Ring lineal champion" who beat the guy who didn't beat the lineal champion before him and "Michalczewski " was the "lineal champion" who beat the guy that didn't beat the lineal champ before him.

Its more ridiculous than the two WBA champions today.

The only real, true champion of a division is the undisputed champion with all of the major titles. That is the highest level of champion. The closest to that today is Wladimir Klitschko who has all but 1 (or 2 if you include the title that Povetkin has) of the major titles.

To put it short, whoever has the most belts is the "champion" of the division ... regardless if he is the "lineal champion."

Funny enough Roy was listed as the "undisputed champion" from 1999-2002 at LHW

List of undisputed boxing champions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yet he didn't have any lineal title until 2002.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TysonBomb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IamInuit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TysonBomb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imp

Well darius must be the true p4p champ then. Roy didnt have time to weight for darius he was to busy winning heavyweight championships..was that less of a risk?

Darius was to busy trying to be next rocky marciano while roy was making history in multi weight divisons.

Roy already got the worst decision in history at the olympics you cant blame him for not wanting to travel when the most money can be made in america.

And lets not talk common opponents between these two as im sure its apparent who had the harder road..!

---

Roy couldn't wait for him? Michalczewski was lineal champ from 97 to 2003, Roy was a lightheavy from 97 to 2003 before facing Ruiz. And that heavyweight title is meaningless too, Lewis was the lineal champ, Ruiz just had a belt Lewis discarded.

P4P is decided by peoples opinion. There are no certainties or facts involved. You can be regarded the best fighter in the world and not even be a legit champion.

And having a bad decision go against you doesn't mean you get a free pass from ever leaving home again. Millions of fighters have been "robbed."

---

Fenster,

Moving up to heavyweight was still a great achievement regardless of the belt.

You already said you think roy was the better fighter and the mythical p4p best..why is there a need to make out roy ducked or feared darius?..we know the big money is in the states.

How is this relevant to marquez saying that floyd would beat pac.

---

Roy beating Ruiz was a good achivement I wouldn't call it great.

I never even came close to saying Roy ducked Darius. I was pointing out who the correct champion was, therefore to simply dismiss the lesser known guy based in Germany as the villain for not travelling is bogus. That's all.

---

Roy had about 8 titles when Dariusz had the lineal title and the WBO strap

8>2

Virgil Hill never beat Spinks for the lineal title, hence the chain of succession was broken and restarted with Hill winning that title in an elimination bout. Dariusz beat Hill for the linear title by decision. Roy then beat Hill in a more convincing, spectacular fashion via KO.

Roy Jones Jr. was the man at LHW.

---

Roy had belts that Michalczewski had already won and discarded or been stripped of through politics. He didn't lose them in the ring.

What belts were those?

When a lineage is broken it only gets restarted when the universally recognised no.1 and 2 meet.

Another crock of shit. There is no such thing as lineal in this era or Roys because there are no undisputed champions.

Hill (WBA champ) and Maske (IBF) unified to establish THE man at 175 (they were recognised as the top two in the division). The WBC champion was Fabrice Tiozzo who Hill had already beat. Roy hadn't even fought in the division at this point.

Then why chastise him?

Hill beat Maske to become THE man. He then lost to Michalczewski who was stripped/chucked the WBA and IBF titles. The titles were now utterly irrelevant because a CLEAR champion was established.

How can these titles both be relevant and not relevant at the same time?

A hundred alaphbet titles don't mean shit compared with lineage. It's the only pure way of having a true champion, regardless of whether or not people think he's the best in the division.

This lineage you speak of is a myth directly and indirectly. One of the biggest crocks in modern day boxing.

And you actually said that.

---

Yes thats right. I commented inside the quote and was told my post was to short.

---

There were TWO lineal champions in from 2002-2003 in the LHW division

Roy was "The Ring lineal champion" who beat the guy who didn't beat the lineal champion before him and "Michalczewski " was the "lineal champion" who beat the guy that didn't beat the lineal champ before him.

Its more ridiculous than the two WBA champions today.

The only real, true champion of a division is the undisputed champion with all of the major titles. That is the highest level of champion. The closest to that today is Wladimir Klitschko who has all but 1 (or 2 if you include the title that Povetkin has) of the major titles.

To put it short, whoever has the most belts is the "champion" of the division ... regardless if he is the "lineal champion."

Funny enough Roy was listed as the "undisputed champion" from 1999-2002 at LHW

List of undisputed boxing champions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yet he didn't have any lineal title until 2002.

---

Lineal.Lunar. Same thing. Paper trail.

PS- Roy would have kicked his ass.

Darius Michalczewski was the WBA, IBF and WBO champion. He didn't LOSE the WBA or IBF titles in the ring. He discarded them, which then means the organisations make the title vacant.

The IBF ordered Darrin Allen-vs-William Guthrie for the vacant title. Guthrie won, then lost it to Reggie Johnson who Roy later beat.

The WBA ordered Eddy Smulders-vs-Lou Del Valle for the vacant title. Del Valle won and Roy later beat him.

So how would Roy have won those belts if Michalczewski decided to keep them or had not been stripped? Roy would have to beat him.

Once you establish yourself as THE man in a division you can only lose that accolade by actually losing in the ring. It's common for unified champions to dump or be stripped of belts (check - Barrera, Lewis, Kostya etc), it doesn't take away from their already established position as THE man in the division.

Each organisation has their own set of rules and rankings, which mean different contenders, politics, and they all want paying sanctioning fees.


@IamInuit

Quote:

---

There is no such thing as lineal in this era or Roys because there are no undisputed champions.

---

You can establish THE man in a division, it's just harder to trace because of the sanctioning bodies confusing things, and especially confusing fans.

Off the top of my head check out - Lewis, Hopkins, Barrera, Tyszu, Marquez, Pac, Floyd, Calzaghe, Naz etc.. you can trace the lineage of some of these fighters going back decades and others established themselves as THE universally recognised champion of a division.

Its all very confusing.

Thats why there should be only ONE belt for each weightclass..why do we need so many belts!?

We need so many belts because it's much easier to sell a fight when a belt is on the line. If you're telling people it's for a world championship then that sells the fight to a lot of people/TV viewers. It helps build fighters too. It helps the sanctioning bodies because they make money from every belt, it helps the promoters sell fights and build the popularity and revenue-producing capability of fighters, so there are a lot of bodies and belts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

We need so many belts because it's much easier to sell a fight when a belt is on the line. If you're telling people it's for a world championship then that sells the fight to a lot of people/TV viewers. It helps build fighters too. It helps the sanctioning bodies because they make money from every belt, it helps the promoters sell fights and build the popularity and revenue-producing capability of fighters, so there are a lot of bodies and belts.

---

Keeps alot of people in jobs then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

We need so many belts because it's much easier to sell a fight when a belt is on the line. If you're telling people it's for a world championship then that sells the fight to a lot of people/TV viewers. It helps build fighters too. It helps the sanctioning bodies because they make money from every belt, it helps the promoters sell fights and build the popularity and revenue-producing capability of fighters, so there are a lot of bodies and belts.

---

Keeps alot of people in jobs then.

---

First and foremost boxing is a business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imp

The difference between pac and floyd is purely boxing.

Pac has to fight marquez 4 times over a period of so many years and still cant win a clear decison over an old fighter.

There is no need for floyd to fight marquez ever again as it was so clear the domination.

If its close again, its the leg cramp excuse.
Pac ducks bradley to fight an old marquez..boxing stinks.

---

True, But Pacquiao smashed Cotto, De La Hoya, Hatton and Mosley whom gave Floyd fits in the ring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountryBoy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imp

The difference between pac and floyd is purely boxing.

Pac has to fight marquez 4 times over a period of so many years and still cant win a clear decison over an old fighter.

There is no need for floyd to fight marquez ever again as it was so clear the domination.

If its close again, its the leg cramp excuse.
Pac ducks bradley to fight an old marquez..boxing stinks.

---

True, But Pacquiao smashed Cotto, De La Hoya, Hatton and Mosley whom gave Floyd fits in the ring.

---

Different circumstances and Pac and Floyd are different kinds of fighters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountryBoy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imp

The difference between pac and floyd is purely boxing.

Pac has to fight marquez 4 times over a period of so many years and still cant win a clear decison over an old fighter.

There is no need for floyd to fight marquez ever again as it was so clear the domination.

If its close again, its the leg cramp excuse.
Pac ducks bradley to fight an old marquez..boxing stinks.

---

True, But Pacquiao smashed Cotto, De La Hoya, Hatton and Mosley whom gave Floyd fits in the ring.

---

You obviously havent been reading the entire thread.

When you have, let us know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Darius Michalczewski was the WBA, IBF and WBO champion. He didn't LOSE the WBA or IBF titles in the ring. He discarded them, which then means the organisations make the title vacant.

The IBF ordered Darrin Allen-vs-William Guthrie for the vacant title. Guthrie won, then lost it to Reggie Johnson who Roy later beat.

The WBA ordered Eddy Smulders-vs-Lou Del Valle for the vacant title. Del Valle won and Roy later beat him.

So how would Roy have won those belts if Michalczewski decided to keep them or had not been stripped? Roy would have to beat him.

Once you establish yourself as THE man in a division you can only lose that accolade by actually losing in the ring. It's common for unified champions to dump or be stripped of belts (check - Barrera, Lewis, Kostya etc), it doesn't take away from their already established position as THE man in the division.

Each organisation has their own set of rules and rankings, which mean different contenders, politics, and they all want paying sanctioning fees.


@IamInuit

Quote:

---

There is no such thing as lineal in this era or Roys because there are no undisputed champions.

---

You can establish THE man in a division, it's just harder to trace because of the sanctioning bodies confusing things, and especially confusing fans.

Off the top of my head check out - Lewis, Hopkins, Barrera, Tyszu, Marquez, Pac, Floyd, Calzaghe, Naz etc.. you can trace the lineage of some of these fighters going back decades and others established themselves as THE universally recognised champion of a division.

---

you are putting too much stock into the BS "lineal title" that isn't even lineal ... especially when there are different versions of it

Michalczewski ended up beating up guys Roy already had defeated and lost to Gonzalez, whom Roy already defeated.

Roy picked up those belts while Michalczewski was fighting his leftovers, hiding in Germany. Roy was the established champ at LHW and P4P #1. Clearly THE MAN to beat at LHW.

Its similar to Tyson cleaning out the HW division and picking up all the belts, while Spinks the "lineal champion" was fighting old Gerry Cooney and ducked Tony Tucker. You really think that Spinks was the "real champion" when he ducked Tucker, whom Tyson defeated? The lineal champion has no mandatory challengers so he can't be stripped or have the title taken away for fighting subpar opposition. At least with the "ABC titles" you have to fight top contenders ... the lineal championship is a paper title, much like the lesser of the two WBA titles of today. You can't just hide in a country as "the lineal champion" when someone else is actively going around collecting titles with you fighting his left overs.

Actually I may be wrong ... Ring magazine awarding Roy with their lineal title may have been their own way of stripping Michalczewski of his lineal title for ducking Roy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TysonBomb

you are putting too much stock into the BS "lineal title" that isn't even lineal ... especially when there are different versions of it

Michalczewski ended up beating up guys Roy already had defeated and lost to Gonzalez, whom Roy already defeated.

Roy picked up those belts while Michalczewski was fighting his leftovers, hiding in Germany. Roy was the established champ at LHW and P4P #1. Clearly THE MAN to beat at LHW.

Its similar to Tyson cleaning out the HW division and picking up all the belts, while Spinks the "lineal champion" was fighting old Gerry Cooney and ducked Tony Tucker. You really think that Spinks was the "real champion" when he ducked Tucker, whom Tyson defeated? The lineal champion has no mandatory challengers so he can't be stripped or have the title taken away for fighting subpar opposition. At least with the "ABC titles" you have to fight top contenders ... the lineal championship is a paper title, much like the lesser of the two WBA titles of today. You can't just hide in a country as "the lineal champion" when someone else is actively going around collecting titles with you fighting his left overs.

Actually I may be wrong ... Ring magazine awarding Roy with their lineal title may have been their own way of stripping Michalczewski of his lineal title for ducking Roy.

---

You still can't seem to grasp that Roy was winning belts Michalczewski had already won and dropped. Going by your reckoning - the more belts the more it proves you're the champ. Therefore, had Michalczewski kept his IBF and WBA titles to go with his WBO, Roy would've only ever been WBC champ.

The Ring and lineal are different. In the late 80s The Ring went out of business, when it returned it no longer recognised lineal champions. In the early 2000's it restarted it's championship policy but IGNORED it's own history. That's why you get the confusion with Jones/Michalczewski. Just because The Ring no longer followed the lineage it didn't mean it stopped, boxing historians continued to trace it. And just because the The Ring wanted Jones to have their belt doesn't mean you can ignore already set in stone history.

Sometimes the lineal champion is not the best fighter in the division. However, it makes far more sense to have one legit champion. Two "world" champs per division is pathetic let alone four - With four different no.1 contenders, four different top tens and each sanctioning body not recognising each others "champion."

Anyone that thinks that multi-champions per division creates better and more meaningful fights hasn't been following boxing to closely.

It's another prime example of how all these alphabet soup title belts have saturated and devalued what it means to be a boxing "world champion".

...we'll find out as soon as he stops duckin'...