Are lineal titles overrated?

In recent times, Floyd Mayweather has been accused of ducking Antonio Margarito. Mayweather chose to fight Carlos Baldomir. But people often forget the fact that Baldomir was the lineal champion at welterweight at the time Mayweather beat him.

When you look through the history of lineal champions, you see guys like Glen Johnson, Cory Spinks, Carlos Baldomir, Ricky Hatton, Jim Watt, Ricardo Mayorga, John Stracey, Adamek etc. all listed as lineal champions.

A lot is made of lineal champions but my question to fight fans is this: are lineal titles overrated?

ANy title, whether linear or not is only as good as the holder. Leon Spinks was the linear heavyweight champ. So was Mike Spinks.

With the plethora of belts, titles become meaningless. The best should fight the best. Wasn;t Barera beltless at one stage having relinquished the belt to fight someone else who the organisation didn't recognise?

The problem lies in where the lineal champs duck the top contenders.

Lets look at the welterweight division for an example:

Mosley was the lineal champ in 2000 having beat Oscar, and rightly so was the true champion of the division.

He took on Forrest and Forrest became the lineal champ and Forrest was a top ranked contender.

Forrest then fought Mayorga who was the no.1 contender and lost the title, so still no arguments there.

Maryorga then lost to Spinks who was not top five ranked at the time and should have been looking to fight Margarito instead.

But Spinks was rightfully the champ but he avoided Margarito, who should have had his shot twice now.

Spinks would go on to lose to Judah who in turn missed on fighting Marg again and Mosley or anyone else in the top 5.

Judah would lose to Baldomir, having missed out on fighting Margarito, Mosley, Cintron.

As you can see the title is losing a lot of credibility now, and Baldomir is clearly not the best in the division.

So does now Marg gets his shot or a resurgent Mosley, no money talks and a barley credible champ fight Mayweather who beat him and becomes the champ.

So now is the title worth much, not in my eyes.

Floyd now could bring some eminence back to the tile by taking on Margarito, Cotto, Mosley or Williams who are ranked 1-4 but now he fights Judah and then Hatton.

So in that sense the lineal title is worth very little.

**Maryorga then lost to Spinks who was not top five ranked at the time and should have been looking to fight Margarito instead.

Spinks was the lineal champion at welterweight in 2003 & 2004 and Mayorga was the no.1 welterweight contender in 2003.

**Spinks would go on to lose to Judah who in turn missed on fighting Marg again and Mosley or anyone else in the top 5.

When Zab Judah became the lineal champion, he fought (1) Baldomir - he was the 2nd best ranked welter in 2006, (2) he also fought Mayweather, and (3) fougt Cotto who was the no.1 welter in the world in 2007.

These are facts.

hitmansam wrote:**Maryorga then lost to Spinks who was not top five ranked at the time and should have been looking to fight Margarito instead.

Spinks was the lineal champion at welterweight in 2003 & 2004 and Mayorga was the no.1 welterweight contender in 2003.

**Spinks would go on to lose to Judah who in turn missed on fighting Marg again and Mosley or anyone else in the top 5.

When Zab Judah became the lineal champion, he fought (1) Baldomir - he was the 2nd best ranked welter in 2006, (2) he also fought Mayweather, and (3) fougt Cotto who was the no.1 welter in the world in 2007.

These are facts.

How do you think Spinks won that title?

He beat Mayorga, only by a MD mind you, deserved a rematch really.



When Judah fought Baldomir he had just creep into the 10th spot on the ranking list have years of being a journeyman.

What Judah did after this is irrelevant since he was not the lineal champ.

A lineal champ has to fight the top contenders if he doesn't it make the title lose all credibility

D4, you're all 'ifs & buts'.

I posted the official facts.

I suppose it could be argued that all titles have become devalued to some extent, there being so many governing bodies, but I'd say that a lineal title is still stronger currency than a bauble picked up at catchweight by a fighter who has no intention of defending it against a legitimate contender at the accepted weight limit for the division.

hitmansam wrote:D4, you're all 'ifs & buts'.

I posted the official facts.

Baldomir was ranked two but that was after he beat Judah and he himself lost to Mayweather.

The ranking are only important before they fight, no point after the event.

D4, you're stating the bloomin' obvious.

Baldomir is much easier prospect than Margarito, Cotto, Mosely. In fact Judah only fought Cotto and Mayweather for that matter after he had lost the title and was attempting a comeback. A great many champions fight for world titles having missed the top fighters in the division. A lineal champion who defeated a belt holder champ hasn't necessarily achieved a great deal. Arguably, the Ricky Hatton's who seek out the best fighters in the division are the true champions.

In fact in modern boxing the career defining fights don't need to involve world titles at all, just two top competitors in the division. Fighters are stripped of titles on a regular basis and the sanctioned bodies behave outrageously, so its more about the calibre of opposition.

HumanWindmill wrote:I suppose it could be argued that all titles have become devalued to some extent, there being so many governing bodies, but I'd say that a lineal title is still stronger currency than a bauble picked up at catchweight by a fighter who has no intention of defending it against a legitimate contender at the accepted weight limit for the division.

To some extent, that why it important who you fight, instead of fringe contenders and calling up fighting from lighter weights instead of fighting.

The lineal belt only has real value if the champion has taking on some top contenders during their reign.

At welter Mayweather, Judah and Spinks never did, three in a row and that why the title had so little value

hitmansam wrote:D4, you're stating the bloomin' obvious.

And what was Baldomir ranking before he beat Judah?

D4thincarnation wrote:

hitmansam wrote:D4, you're stating the bloomin' obvious.

And what was Baldomir ranking before he beat Judah?

I'll give you a clue they were 10 fighters ranked higher than him.

BS! In 2005, Baldomir was a top-10 ranked welter!
In 2006, Baldomir was the 2nd ranked welter before coming the lineal champ!

No, facts

He was ranked 10 and there were 10 fighter above him.

Those are the facts.

D4thincarnation wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:I suppose it could be argued that all titles have become devalued to some extent, there being so many governing bodies, but I'd say that a lineal title is still stronger currency than a bauble picked up at catchweight by a fighter who has no intention of defending it against a legitimate contender at the accepted weight limit for the division.

To some extent, that why it important who you fight, instead of fringe contenders and calling up fighting from lighter weights instead of fighting.

The lineal belt only has real value if the champion has taking on some top contenders during their reign.

At welter Mayweather, Judah and Spinks never did, three in a row and that why the title had so little value

I couldn't agree more that a belt only has value if the champion has taken on top contenders during his reign. Belts amassed by a fighter who has no intention of defending them against legitimate contenders - or defending them at all - are of very limited value, as you rightly point out.

HumanWindmill wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:I suppose it could be argued that all titles have become devalued to some extent, there being so many governing bodies, but I'd say that a lineal title is still stronger currency than a bauble picked up at catchweight by a fighter who has no intention of defending it against a legitimate contender at the accepted weight limit for the division.

To some extent, that why it important who you fight, instead of fringe contenders and calling up fighting from lighter weights instead of fighting.

The lineal belt only has real value if the champion has taking on some top contenders during their reign.

At welter Mayweather, Judah and Spinks never did, three in a row and that why the title had so little value

I couldn't agree more that a belt only has value if the champion has taken on top contenders during his reign. Belts amassed by a fighter who has no intention of defending them against legitimate contenders - or defending them at all - are of very limited value, as you rightly point out.

I'm glad you agree.

D4thincarnation wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:I suppose it could be argued that all titles have become devalued to some extent, there being so many governing bodies, but I'd say that a lineal title is still stronger currency than a bauble picked up at catchweight by a fighter who has no intention of defending it against a legitimate contender at the accepted weight limit for the division.

To some extent, that why it important who you fight, instead of fringe contenders and calling up fighting from lighter weights instead of fighting.

The lineal belt only has real value if the champion has taking on some top contenders during their reign.

At welter Mayweather, Judah and Spinks never did, three in a row and that why the title had so little value

I couldn't agree more that a belt only has value if the champion has taken on top contenders during his reign. Belts amassed by a fighter who has no intention of defending them against legitimate contenders - or defending them at all - are of very limited value, as you rightly point out.

I'm glad you agree.

Likewise.

D4thincarnation: The lineal belt only has real value if the champion has taking on some top contenders during their reign.
---------
Think that logic can be applied to any 'world title' too. In an era of so many trinket straps a true champion can only be recognised by the quality he fights in a) winning his title and b) defending it against quality opposition.

Yes I have made that point, now I have people repeating my point back to me.

I do know it I was the one that made it :huh:

Why is it that the same purveyor of one-handed art pamphlets can be found time and again bringing ducking into the equation when it's not relevant? All that matters given the current poor situation in boxing is that the most highly ranked guys take on the toughest challenges available. If this means acquiring belts, then fine, but that is not a necessity. Unfortunately too many of the boxers who are reckoned to be among the cream of the crop are taking fights which are meaningless.

Considering guys like Glen Johnson, Cory Spinks, Carlos Baldomir, Ricky Hatton, Jim Watt, Ricardo Mayorga & Adamek have been lineal champions, I think we can safely say the title is overrated.

Don't see how that logic works, they all became the lineal champion by rights, its not a title that gets handed out to just anyone

To be the man you have to beat the man. Simple idea.

As long as a fighter wins it properly (i.e not through an injury) then he is rightfully recognised as the best at that weight.

If the man is just fighting fringe contender instead of the top guys around, it devalues the title.

And since they are not force to defending against the top guys they can have a string of victories against poor opposition and they lose to an very average opponent, then is that title worth much?


Some lineal title are worth the prestige but some where the champs have cherry picked are pretty much worthless.

A title is as good as the boxer regardless of the strap.

azania wrote:A title is as good as the boxer regardless of the strap.

So when Mayweather won the lineal title at welter, it was a very poor journeyman title he won?

D4thincarnation wrote:

azania wrote:A title is as good as the boxer regardless of the strap.

So when Mayweather won the lineal title at welter, it was a very poor journeyman title he won?

I think you should read what I said again. "as good as the boxer". Floyd is a superb boxer.....the best WW by a street when active.

D4thincarnation wrote:

azania wrote:A title is as good as the boxer regardless of the strap.

So when Mayweather won the lineal title at welter, it was a very poor journeyman title he won?

Indeed so.

However, Mayweather's own sublime skillset validated the "lineal" title somewhat.

By that logic - Ali was poor as Liston was merely a powerful slugger, but a limited boxer and so the title he won in such incredible fasion was merely a tarnished slugger without a boxing brain "lineal title".

Doesn't have the same ring, does it?

No Liston was the man at the weight not just the champion and fought the best around.

Lets not compare Baldomir to Liston now

And Baldomir was the man at WW. Given that he'd beaten Judah and that Mosley was tarnished having lost to Forrest. Rather than being the unbeaten dragon you paint him to be.

Also worth mentioning that Mosley turned down 2 fights with Mayweather when he was lineal champion.

Funny that.

oxring wrote:And Baldomir was the man at WW. Given that he'd beaten Judah and that Mosley was tarnished having lost to Forrest. Rather than being the unbeaten dragon you paint him to be.

Also worth mentioning that Mosley turned down 2 fights with Mayweather when he was lineal champion.

Funny that.

If you read my first post you will see how the welter weight lineal title lost it credibility due to the top contenders not getting a shot at it.

What a load of rubbish, if you beat the man you are then the man

Top-10 welters when Mayweather beat Baldomir:

1. Antonio Margarito
2. Carlos Manuel Baldomir
3. Miguel Angel Cotto
4. Zab Judah
5. Luis Collazo
6. Kermit Cintron
7. Oktay Urkal
8. Arturo Gatti
9. Paul Williams
10. Joshua Clottey

Who thinks Baldomir was better than Williams, Cotto or Margarito?

Not sure where you got those rankings from but its impossible for a lineal champion to be ranked lower than one

imperialghosty wrote:What a load of rubbish, if you beat the man you are then the man

I agree with this to a degree, but how many times have we seen one boxer beat 'the man' only to lose to a lesser-ranked opponent in his very next fight? Buster Douglas anyone? I'll happily admit that Pacquiao isn't the same case, as he's clearly dominant around 135-147, but without clearing up at 140 it could have been the case that his beating 'the man' was an anomaly. In theory, at least.

Not sure what you mean by that because Douglas lost his title to Holyfield, hardly a lower ranked opponent. In beating Tyson he was the divisions number one until he lost, whether it's one good night or a prolonged reign it doesn't matter.

They're the official Ring magazine ratings for the welterweight division in 2006.

Ahhhh they're the rankings after Mayweather beat Baldomir not before

It's all a bit pointless and academic, and on top of that the lineage has been broken at every weight. You know who the best are whether they are 'lineal' is a bit irrelevant these days with the amount of weight jumping, avoidance, politics etc.

Ghosty all I meant was that despite beating Tyson, Douglas was far from dominant. Not the best of examples because as you say Holyfield was no slouch, but I hope you understand what I meant. Beating the man if you then lose the very next fight can be seen as a freak occurrence.

And Scott-spot on.

The lineage being broken isn't a major issue with me, a new champion can only be crowned after a fight between number one and two.

I see where your coming from but doesn't alter the fact that for that night alone Douglas deserved to be the lineal champion, you don't win it by beating an average belt holder, by and large the lineal champion is the best in the division.

imperialghosty wrote:The lineage being broken isn't a major issue with me, a new champion can only be crowned after a fight between number one and two.

Presumably you mean the Ring (otherwise there's no consensus) which I place value in but they have only 6 champions in 17 divisions, and no power to enforce mandatories etc. I find myself agreeing with a lot of this article, especially the second paragraph and sentences like "While it is gratifying to see a single champion in each division at every point in time, a strictly lineal championship is often at odds with reality and resembles arcane genealogy more than a method of identifying a boxing champion." http://www.arcaneknowledge.org/sports/linealprob.htm

Sounds fancy without explaining a lot, the ring magazine belt has been given out to the linear champion since the 1920's so yes I do consider that to be a consensus champion. In an age of multiple champions I do feel the need to cling onto one thing that potentially shows who the best is. Also the fact that there are only 6 ring champions just highlights the fact that the best invariably don't face the best.

I understand the viewpoint that the ring belt is meaningless but it is the oldest and most prestigious of them all.

I think it's saying that the guy who beats 'the man' may not necessarily be the best guy in a given division. If the top dog loses unexpectedly, then that guy in turn loses to someone who's not all that great, we have a guy who's the lineal champ, but who isn't actually consistently good.

When you look at the lists of linear champions you'll notice that whilst what your saying is a possibility it very rarely happens which is quite interesting in itself

I hadn't looked, but an interesting point. I suppose it comes down to who beats the lineal champ first. Suppose for arguments sake there are three guys who could beat the lineal champ, but he faces the worst of the three and loses. The guy who is then the lineal champ is in theory (but for the sake of argument quite clearly) a lesser boxer than those other two guys. Once again, if neither of those guys has the opportunity to beat the lineal champion then the line is diluted, no?

But until that does actually happen i'm going to have to treat things as they are

Well, yeah. It's only if and but.

imperialghosty wrote:But until that does actually happen i'm going to have to treat things as they are

It did happen at welter, Spinks, Judah, Baldomir and Mayweather all didn't face the top contenders.