Buzz word..

Lineal champ is a term used much more regularly than previously on V2. Does it actually hold any weight (in the sense that it is more significant than holding any other alphabet world title, or somehow makes you more worthy than another champ) or is it just reassuring link to the past, with no real meaning?

The lineal champ doesn't really make you the best in the weight Floyd won the lineal WW title by beating baldomir who won it of judah for instance, now judah at the time was 1 of the best in the weight class and should never have lost it, but to be the man you have to beat the man which is always a good way to look at it

Martinez was generally thought of as the middleweight champion, as Cotto is now.

Sam Soliman, Darren Barker, Gennady Golovkin, Felix Sturm and others generally aren't/weren't. They are/were merely titlists -- top contenders who were guided to a title fight by their management.

Andre Ward, for instance is the super middleweight champion. It doesn't matter how many belts Carl Froch picks up, he'll never be the champion until he defeats Ward.

In that sense, the term does hold more water, however, who actually uses it? Boxing anoraks and forum flies usually.

Promoters and fighters prefer to term titlists as champions, as it suits their aims.

So has someone actually worked out who beat the man who beat the man all the way back. Seems very subjective, not to mention flawed. If you have two top champs say martinez and ggg who never fought and they each get beat then whonis the man cotto or the guy that beat ggg? Or do people just over simplify and say the wbc belt was linear, then it was ring belt and now its just who the fans say....or something along those lines? I honestly cant fathom it out.

The term does still carry weight as it basically exempts its incumbent from the charge that, if boxing was still operating under the rules of the good old days (open to interpretation, that one!) they would never have been a world champion, which is a charge that you can throw at a majority of fighters in recent times who have billed themselves as a world champion. People bemoan how little titles are worth these days, but you can't quibble a lineal title (so basically a Ring Magazine title these days) too much as whoever wins it has to do so off the generally accepted champion / man who beat the man in their weight class, just as they had to do back in the times pre-dating the major splits and multiplication of the sanctioning bodies.

It's not an exact science and can't please / convince everyone, as the man who is the closest thing to a lineal champion isn't always necessarily the clear, outstanding fighter in his division, but then again the same could be said back in the one-belt era. But in a time when the term "world champion" has lost a hell of a lot of its old significance, at least beating the man who beat the man makes you the closest thing to a legitimate world champion in the original sense.

Cotto has that status right now at 160 by hook or crook - but if he doesn't fight Golovkin sharpish then that status becomes a bit of a joke.

Floyd has the WW and LMW just now but he never win it of anyone I'm sure the ring magazine made canelo ranked 2 and Floyd 1 but it kind of doesn't work if ring magazine has so much say

3fingers wrote:So has someone actually worked out who beat the man who beat the man all the way back. Seems very subjective, not to mention flawed. If you have two top champs say martinez and ggg who never fought and they each get beat then whonis the man cotto or the guy that beat ggg? Or do people just over simplify and say the wbc belt was linear, then it was ring belt and now its just who the fans say....or something along those lines? I honestly cant fathom it out.

Martinez beat Pavlik who beat Taylor who beat Hopkins who became universally recognised as the middleweight boss when he whupped Tito.

That's a far simpler system than following the alphabets.

Ring Championships are flawed. Under Nigel Collins, the criteria was strict in order to offer clarity. After GBP bought the magazine, the new editorial team thought it would be more helpful to loosen the policy and make it easier for people to become champions (which was entirely what the policy was originally set up to avoid).

These are the best ratings we have currently: http://www.tbrb.org/

Sadly, only Teddy Atlas has advocated them on TV.

Some day, before I snuff it, we'll go back to a system as clear as this and fans will flock back to the support.

Here are the TBRB successions:
 
The Transnational Boxing Rankings Board stands with those fans and purists who set the true divisional champions apart from the rest. What follows is how and when they got there. We show only the latest branch of those divisions where the throne is occupied. Why? Because the odds don’t favor the Board’s historians agreeing on exhaustive successions nearly as much as they do a debate-gone-bad with flying fists and busted beaks. Collaboration has its limits. We want to stand pat on common ground.
 
Heavyweight  
 
Wladimir Klitschko W12 Alexander Povetkin (5 October 2013—Klitschhko and Povetkin were the top two TBRB-Ranked heavyweights at the time of this bout.)
 
Light Heavyweight  
 
Adonis Stevenson TKO1 Chad Dawson (8 June 2013)
Chad Dawson W12 Bernard Hopkins (28 April 2012)
Bernard Hopkins W12 Jean Pascal (21 May 2011)
Jean Pascal TD11 Chad Dawson (14 August 2010—Pascal and Dawson were the top two RING-rated light heavyweights at the time of this bout.)
 
Super Middleweight  
 
Andre Ward W12 Carl Froch (17 December 2011—Ward and Froch were the top two RING-rated super middleweights at the time of this bout.)
 
Middleweight  
 
Miguel Cotto TKO10 Sergio Martinez (7 June 2014)
Sergio Martinez W12 Kelly Pavlik (17 April 2010)
Kelly Pavlik TKO7 Jermain Taylor (29 September 2007)
Jermain Taylor W12 Bernard Hopkins (16 July 2005)
Bernard Hopkins TKO12 Felix Trinidad (29 September 2001—Hopkins and Trinidad were the top two RING-rated middleweights at the time of this bout.)
 
Junior Middleweight  
 
Floyd Mayweather, Jr. W12 Saul Alvarez (14 September 2013—Mayweather and Alvarez were the top two T-Ranked Jr. middleweights at the time of this bout.)
 
Junior Welterweight  
 
Danny Garcia W12 Lucas Matthysse (14 September 2013—Garcia and Matthysse were the top two T-Ranked Jr. welterweights at the time of this bout.)
 
Jr. Featherweight  
 
Guillermo Rigondeaux W12 Nonito Donaire (13 April 2013)
Nonito Donaire TKO9 Toshiaki Nishioka (13 October 2012—Nishioka and Donaire were the top two T-Ranked Jr. featherweights at the time of this bout.)
 
Flyweight  
 
Akira Yaegashi W12 Toshiyuki Igarashi (8 April 2013)
Toshiyuki Igarashi W12 Sonny Boy Jaro (16 July 2012)
Sonny Boy Jaro TKO6 Pongsaklek Wonjongkam (2 March 2012)
Pongsaklek Wonjongkam W12 Koki Kameda (27 March 2010)
Koki Kameda W12 Daisuke Naito (29 November 2009)
Daisuke Naito W12 Pongsaklek Wonjongkam (18 July 2007)
Pongsaklek Wonjongkam TKO1 Malcolm Tunacao (2 March 2001)
Malcolm Tunacao TKO7 Medgoen Singsurat (19 May 2000)
Medgoen Singsurat TKO 3 Manny Pacquiao (17 September 1999)
Manny Pacquiao KO8 Chatchai Sasakul (4 December 1998)
Chatchai Sasakul W12 Yuri Arbachakov (12 November 1997)
Yuri Arbachakov KO8 Muangchai Kittikasem (23 June 1992)
Muangchai Kittikasem TKO6 Sot Chitalada (15 Februrary 1991)
Sot Chitalada W12 Yong-Kang Kim (3 June 1989)
Yong-Kang Kim W12 Sot Chitalada (24 July 1988)
Sot Chitalada W12 Gabriel Bernal (8 October 1984)
Gabriel Bernal KO2 Koji Kabayashi (9 April 1984)
Koji Kabayashi TKO2 Frank Cedeno (18 January 1984)
Frank Cedeno TKO6 Charlie Magri (27 September 1983)
Charlie Magri TKO7 Eleoncio Mercedes (15 March 1983)
Eleoncio Mercedes W15 Freddie Castillo (6 November 1982)
Freddie Castillo W15 Prudencio Cardona (24 July 1982)
Prudencio Cardona KO1 Antonio Avelar (20 March 1982)
Antonio Avelar KO7 Shoji Oguma (12 May 1981)
Shoji Oguma KO9 Chan-Hee Park (18 May 1980)
Chan-Hee Park W15 Miguel Canto (18 March 1979)
Miguel Canto W15 Shoji Oguma (8 January 1975—Canto and Oguma were the top two RING-rated flyweights at the time of this bout.)

Mayweather was a top rated Ring fighter at light middle for beating Cotto who's only wins were against a half blind Margarito, a useless Mayorga and another cripple in the form of Foreman!!??

hazharrison wrote:Martinez was generally thought of as the middleweight champion, as Cotto is now.

i understand the logic, but would anyone give cotto a chance against GGG?
people would top him to beat froch at super middle, never mind a small middleweight in cotto.

cotto had a good win, but i couldn't consider him THE middleweight champ. he's not even the best light middle.

It's simple mate. Cotto goes to #1 because he beat Martinez (said through gritted teeth). He doesn't have to beat GGG, or clean out the division, he just needs to beat the man.

Any system which looks to establish the top champion in a division will only work in practice if the top fighters fight each other. If that doesnt happen then the system wont work. Martinez avoiding Golovkin and turning up ready for the knackers yard against Cotto creates a false champion in my opinion. Lineal, alphabet or whatever else you want to call it.

catchweight wrote:Any system which looks to establish the top champion in a division will only work in practice if the top fighters fight each other. If that doesnt happen then the system wont work. Martinez avoiding Golovkin and turning up ready for the knackers yard against Cotto creates a false champion in my opinion. Lineal, alphabet or whatever else you want to call it.

exactly my point.
cotto had a great win, but the lineal champ should mean he's the best in the division. he isn't the best of any division, nevermind middleweight where he's yet to fight at the full weight and lost his last 2 big fights in the division below.

that said i am very happy for cotto.

I can't accept Cotto as the Middleweight champion of the world having never fought at the full weight limit, also I'm pretty sure Golovkin makes short work of him and clearly has a better record at Middleweight, seeing as he's actually fought at Middleweight. Also with the lineal way of doing things how long is Martinez considered "The Man" without actually fighting, 14 months is a long time to be inactive. If he had been allowed a tune up fight against say a Rosado, Lee or Stevens and got beat, which he may well have given the state of him against Cotto, would we consider them to be "The Man" despite clearly being worse than a handful of people at the weight?

I like the idea in theory but only works if everyone is playing ball and the top guys fight each other.

I've read that Mayweather is going to defend both Welter & Jnr Middle titles on the same night in Sept, the circus of boxing continues. Really is a mess from top to bottom.

cheers Rodders

bellchees wrote:If he had been allowed a tune up fight against say a Rosado, Lee or Stevens and got beat, which he may well have given the state of him against Cotto, would we consider them to be "The Man" despite clearly being worse than a handful of people at the weight?

Yes. Hence the phrase "man who beat the man".

Cotto as middleweight boss is no different to Spinks and Tyson, Patterson and Liston, Minter and Hagler and countless other examples.

Cotto's the champion until he gets beat (and HBO aren't likely to bankroll his next fight unless its against a top opponent).

Reborn-DeeMcK-Reborn wrote:Mayweather was a top rated Ring fighter at light middle for beating Cotto who's only wins were against a half blind Margarito, a useless Mayorga and another cripple in the form of Foreman!!??

Who should have ranked above Cotto?

catchweight wrote:Any system which looks to establish the top champion in a division will only work in practice if the top fighters fight each other. If that doesnt happen then the system wont work. Martinez avoiding Golovkin and turning up ready for the knackers yard against Cotto creates a false champion in my opinion. Lineal, alphabet or whatever else you want to call it.

A false champion? What's next? Ghost champions? Inverse champions?

Martinez was the king because he'd beaten the previous boss and established dominance at the weight 9I know it's an alien concept these days). He doesn't become a fake -- like the alphabet phonies -- just because he's sidelined due to injury.

Rodney wrote:I've read that Mayweather is going to defend both Welter & Jnr Middle titles on the same night in Sept, the circus of boxing continues. Really is a mess from top to bottom.

cheers Rodders

Dude needs a gimmick if he's not going to fight anyone.

OasisBFC wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Martinez was generally thought of as the middleweight champion, as Cotto is now.

i understand the logic, but would anyone give cotto a  chance against GGG?
people would top him to beat froch at super middle, never mind a small middleweight in cotto.

cotto had a good win, but i couldn't consider him THE middleweight champ. he's not even the best light middle.

No-one gave Cotto a chance against Martinez.

Martinez might have become the champion legitimately but if you don’t defend the title against the top challengers then so what? Martinez avoided Golovkin for an extended period because he knew he physically wasn’t up to the challenge. He faced opponents that he could get away with beating whilst semi injured. In the end they hiked Cotto up hoping he would be too small and too past it to make Martinez pay for his injuries. No matter what system you use, unless the top fighters are fighting each other and the champion fighting the biggest threats then the system wont be a real indication of who is the best or most deserving champion.

Catchweight has a good point and I can't disagree with it as it makes sense, but just for my sanity I will use the man who beat man as identifying the legitimate champion. Whatever system we try to use its going to become flawed, for instance where do we stand with Andre Ward, clearly the main man at SM but when does that become under jeopardy with his activity levels ?

Cheers Rodders

catchweight wrote:Martinez might have become the champion legitimately but if you don’t defend the title against the top challengers then so what? Martinez avoided Golovkin for an extended period because he knew he physically wasn’t up to the challenge. He faced opponents that he could get away with beating whilst semi injured. In the end they hiked Cotto up hoping he would be too small and too past it to make Martinez pay for his injuries.  No matter what system you use, unless the top fighters are fighting each other and the champion fighting the biggest threats then the system wont be a real indication of who is the best or most deserving champion.  

Champions have done that since boxing began. It just reflects badly on their tenure but doesn't mean they cease to be champions.

Rodney wrote:Catchweight has a good point and I can't disagree with it as it makes sense, but just for my sanity I will use the man who beat man as identifying the legitimate champion. Whatever system we try to use its going to become flawed, for instance where do we stand with Andre Ward, clearly the main man at SM but when does that become under jeopardy with his activity levels ?

Cheers Rodders

Only if he retires. Who else could legitimately claim to be the 168 lb. champion without beating Ward?

hazharrison wrote:

catchweight wrote:Martinez might have become the champion legitimately but if you don’t defend the title against the top challengers then so what? Martinez avoided Golovkin for an extended period because he knew he physically wasn’t up to the challenge. He faced opponents that he could get away with beating whilst semi injured. In the end they hiked Cotto up hoping he would be too small and too past it to make Martinez pay for his injuries.  No matter what system you use, unless the top fighters are fighting each other and the champion fighting the biggest threats then the system wont be a real indication of who is the best or most deserving champion.  

Champions have done that since boxing began. It just reflects badly on their tenure but doesn't mean they cease to be champions.

I never said they didn’t. I said that any system is dependent on the top fighters facing each other. What good is a lineal champion if they avoid the top challengers?

hazharrison wrote:

Rodney wrote:Catchweight has a good point and I can't disagree with it as it makes sense, but just for my sanity I will use the man who beat man as identifying the legitimate champion. Whatever system we try to use its going to become flawed, for instance where do we stand with Andre Ward, clearly the main man at SM but when does that become under jeopardy with his activity levels ?

Cheers Rodders

Only if he retires. Who else could legitimately claim to be the 168 lb. champion without beating Ward?

I agree however when does it become the point when an active fighter should be stripped of being the "Man" lets say for instance GGG cleans out Carl Froch and is banging on the door for a Ward match, but he cant get it because Ward thinks his a PPV fighter and is in a wrangle of contractual disputes. I dont believe you can claim the crown and then not let others have the opportunity to have a crack at it.

Cheers Rodders

catchweight wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

catchweight wrote:Martinez might have become the champion legitimately but if you don’t defend the title against the top challengers then so what? Martinez avoided Golovkin for an extended period because he knew he physically wasn’t up to the challenge. He faced opponents that he could get away with beating whilst semi injured. In the end they hiked Cotto up hoping he would be too small and too past it to make Martinez pay for his injuries.  No matter what system you use, unless the top fighters are fighting each other and the champion fighting the biggest threats then the system wont be a real indication of who is the best or most deserving champion.  

Champions have done that since boxing began. It just reflects badly on their tenure but doesn't mean they cease to be champions.

I never said they didn’t. I said that any system is dependent on the top fighters facing each other. What good is a lineal champion if they avoid the top challengers?

Lineal champs are under increased pressure to face worthy opponents than alphabet champs but without adequate governance there isn't any ideal solution (if you're disregarding lineal champs, then you have to disregard the concept of championships/champions/ratings in their entirety and just enjoy the fights).

Those ratings, though, are as sensible as boxing gets in 2014.

hazharrison wrote:

catchweight wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

catchweight wrote:Martinez might have become the champion legitimately but if you don’t defend the title against the top challengers then so what? Martinez avoided Golovkin for an extended period because he knew he physically wasn’t up to the challenge. He faced opponents that he could get away with beating whilst semi injured. In the end they hiked Cotto up hoping he would be too small and too past it to make Martinez pay for his injuries.  No matter what system you use, unless the top fighters are fighting each other and the champion fighting the biggest threats then the system wont be a real indication of who is the best or most deserving champion.  

Champions have done that since boxing began. It just reflects badly on their tenure but doesn't mean they cease to be champions.

I never said they didn’t. I said that any system is dependent on the top fighters facing each other. What good is a lineal champion if they avoid the top challengers?

Lineal champs are under increased pressure to face worthy opponents than alphabet champs but without adequate governance there isn't any ideal solution (if you're disregarding lineal champs, then you have to disregard the concept of championships/champions/ratings in their entirety and just enjoy the fights).

Yes I agree but its easy to see why a lot of people are going to be reluctant to accept Cotto for example as THE champion in these circumstances. Il recognise him as the lineal champion but in the circumstances it doesn’t mean the best or most worthy. Lineality (is that a word?) is only as good as circumstances it exists in. Winning the championship at a catchweight against a knackered opponent while a far more dangerous opponent has been avoided doesn’t float my boat. I cant see Cotto bucking the trend either unfortunately.

Sporting journalists on boxing websites seem to have made a determination to bring back the term "lineal" to the boxing public consciousness. They try to not promote the ring belt which was formerly used to recognise lineal champions as goldenboy buying the magazine tainted it's independence regardless of whether sanctioning fees apply or not. They also try as best they can to not give publicity to the sanctioning organisations "championship" fights as that process has become a farce.

I think it is good that the 606 community has also taken on the terminology of lineal champion and alphabelts. It shows we know and understand the orgainsational structures of our sport, which I'm afraid a casual fan never will.

I dont think lineal has much meaning. For me it's a term which implies some great unbroken lineage with a rightful successor overthrowing the previous hier. However, if that was the case then one of the alphabet belts would still be regarded as the True Belt (as it would have been passed from The Champion to the next champion for generations). Thats not the case and the concept is hardly linear, or when it is linear it bears no reflextion to who is THE MAN at the weight for very long.

I think we should start saying the term champion is a buzz word in boxing. It's getting ridiculous now and does nothing to help the sport when your trying to explain to your mates down the pub etc on whats going on.

3fingers wrote:I dont think lineal has much meaning. For me it's a term which implies some great unbroken lineage with a rightful successor overthrowing the previous hier. However, if that was the case then one of the alphabet belts would still be regarded as the True Belt (as it would have been passed from The Champion to the next champion for generations). Thats not the case and the concept is hardly linear, or when it is linear it bears no reflextion to who is THE MAN at the weight for very long.

That doesn't make any sense.

I think it does but thats probably because I wrote it.. so know what I mean.

which bit dont you get, maybe im not being quite clear.

If The XXX Belt was held by The Man in 1930,  if linear means linear i.e the man who beat the man, then The Man in 2014 would hold The XXX Belt. Therefore The XXX belt holder would be regarded as the true champion (over the ABC belt holder) because he'd be the linear champion (and that would be the same across all weights) buts thats not the case.

That would be alright if there was only 1 belt 3f's, but as there's about 20 per sanctioning body per weight, it gets more and more difficult, especially as none of them seem that fussed about making their 'champs' fight the best

None of the titles can be truly linear these days without a single official governing body with a single official set of rankings.

If Rigondeaux vacated his title and moved up a weight for instance, the chain is broken. The next “lineal” champion is then decided on a match by whatever publication decides is worthy based on their own rankings and rules.

There's so many ways the chain can be broken (or has been) that for me at least the term Linear Champ has no meaning.

Of course the chain can be broken. However, if the best two fighters in the division meet to settle superiority after that, then a new chain begins (ala Ward over Froch).

It's a far more simple process to understand than ABCs. It still baffles me why anyone even mentions them.

Lineal just means a direct line. The man who beat the man. Until someone beats Cotto, Cotto is the man at middleweight. I realise this gets the back up of some people, especially as a live challenger in GGG exists.

The problem I have with the situation is that Cotto probably doesn't value the belt as much as he does being a 4 weight world champion. He's more likely to fight bigger names at catch weights like Canelo and Floyd than unify the division against GGG. I don't think there's anything wrong with that as Cotto for me is a legend and will still take on dangerous fights. It's just a shame that the lineal middleweight champion isn't really a middleweight.

We could realistically have Floyd Mayweather as the middleweight champion of the world in a years time with GGG still on the outside, looking in.

Dipper Brown wrote:Lineal just means a direct line. The man who beat the man. Until someone beats Cotto, Cotto is the man at middleweight. I realise this gets the back up of some people, especially as a live challenger in GGG exists.

The problem I have with the situation is that Cotto probably doesn't value the belt as much as he does being a 4 weight world champion. He's more likely to fight bigger names at catch weights like Canelo and Floyd than unify the division against GGG. I don't think there's anything wrong with that as Cotto for me is a legend and will still take on dangerous fights. It's just a shame that the lineal middleweight champion isn't really a middleweight.

We could realistically have Floyd Mayweather as the middleweight champion of the world in a years time with GGG still on the outside, looking in.

That would be standard Floyd.

It would be disappointing. Cotto is my favourite fighter and a legend but a 155 middleweight champion of the world defending it at catch weights against smaller guys isn't an ideal situation.

I don't think it's Cotto's responsibility to be the saviour of the division or anything but I'd like to see GGG get a shot at a major guy sometime soon.