Which is more important lineal title or alphabet soup (WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO) title?

[generalbulldog]

Please vote and give your reasons.

A lot of fans believe that the lineal title is nothing and that the WBC, IBF, WBA, WBO titles are more important. For example someone here said that when Pac beat Hatton in '09 at 140, Pac was no champ because none of the ABC titles were on the line, but hardcore fans and boxing historians say he was the king of the 140 division because he beat the man even though no alphabet title was on the line. Or that John Ruiz has the same kind of legitimate claim as HW champ as Ali, Louis, Marciano, Dempsey, Foreman, Frazier, Lennox Lewis, when he beat Holyfield for the WBA version of the title in March of '01, while Lewis was the lineal champ and recognized as the best HW in the world. Or that Mike Tyson was the HW champ when he beat Berbick although lots of people say he did not become champ until he beat Spinks.

I am of the belief that the lineal title only counts, meaning the man who beat the man. Or in the absence that the lineal champ retires or moves up a division the no. 1 or 2 contender square off to be the new champ of the division and the new lineage is started.

Discuss.