Rumours: Liam Smith Offered Canelo?

Why would Canelo pick on Smith?

Does Smith take it if this is genuine?

Will it be in the new 155 lb. Super Gingerino Division?

If it's a genuine offer it will probably be the best purse Smith will ever make. Considering the names at 154(Lara, Charlo, Charlo, Cotto?) Smith gets beaten by all of them. Take the money.

Cant criticise Smith, loads of money more money he'll ever make

Doesn't have a chance though, need to be a special kind of fighter to beat Smith and to be brutally honest Smith is a world champion who hasn't fought anything close to a world class opponent

He'd be game but he'd be beaten pillar to post once Canelo warms up around.round 4, TKO round 9

Let's hope Canelo gets rid of the fraud champion..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Let's hope Canelo gets rid of the fraud champion..

At 154? What does that make Canelo at 160?

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Let's hope Canelo gets rid of the fraud champion..

At 154? What does that make Canelo at 160?

Canelo is as big a fraud as any champ out there...

Wonder what weight this will be at, Canelo weight?

Hope he takes it, earn great money and still keeps his title (Win win)

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Let's hope Canelo gets rid of the fraud champion..

At 154? What does that make Canelo at 160?

I regard GGG as the true middleweight champion.......If Canelo comes off for him that's all good but I'd rather GGG took on the guys at 168...No one can touch Golovkin at 160...

Not much time for Canelo as middleweight champion though I think he deserves more respect as a fighter........

But who has Smith fought and he's a world champion ??

Makes a mockery of a sport where Herol Graham, Sibson and colin Jones were just contenders..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Let's hope Canelo gets rid of the fraud champion..

At 154? What does that make Canelo at 160?

I regard GGG as the true middleweight champion.......If Canelo comes off for him that's all good but I'd rather GGG took on the guys at 168...No one can touch Golovkin at 160...

Not much time for Canelo as middleweight champion though I think he deserves more respect as a fighter........

But who has Smith fought and he's a world champion ??

Makes a mockery of a sport where Herol Graham, Sibson and colin Jones were just contenders..

Probably time to stop calling people champions because they have a promoter who can buy them a title belt (which is more or less what happened here with Smith). Smith isn't even a top ten world ranked light middle is he?

How many fighters actually act like champions these days? Gonzalez. Rigondeaux would like the chance to act like one. And that's it. Crazy.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Let's hope Canelo gets rid of the fraud champion..

At 154? What does that make Canelo at 160?

I regard GGG as the true middleweight champion.........

Canelo beat Cotto who beat Martinez who beat Pavlik who beat Taylor who beat Hopkins.

GGG beat Lemiuex (who beat Hassan N'Dam N'Jikam for a vacant belt) and Nilson Julio Tapia (for the vacant Quigg-type WBA-lite belt).

If anyone else had written that, they'd have been called "fanboys".

Tureano Johnson has pulled out of a potential Golovkin fight (shoulder surgery) and, after BJS and FW decided to go in "a different direction" it looks as though GGG is knackered in his quest to face a decent opponent next up (Jacobs has also passed on facing him).

Once again they're waiting for the middleweight king to make up their mind on a fight (I'd be amazed if Golden Boy agreed to the showdown in May).

Where the hell do you go next with him at 160?

Saul Alvarez 46-1-1 (32) MEX ***

1 Gennady Golovkin 34-0-0 (31) KAZ 1
2 Daniel Jacobs 31-1-0 (28) USA 2
3 Billy Joe Saunders 23-0-0 (12) ENG 3
4 Miguel Cotto 40-5-0 (33) PR 4
5 Andy Lee 34-3-1 (24) IRE 5
6 David Lemieux 34-3-0 (31) CAN 6
7 Peter Quillin 32-1-1 (23) USA 7
8 Hassan N'Dam N'Jikam 31-2-0 (18) CMR 8
9 Daniel Geale 31-4-0 (16) AUS 9
10 Dominic Wade 18-0-0 (12)

Wade?

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Let's hope Canelo gets rid of the fraud champion..

At 154? What does that make Canelo at 160?

I regard GGG as the true middleweight champion.........

Canelo beat Cotto who beat Martinez who beat Pavlik who beat Taylor who beat Hopkins.

GGG beat Lemiuex (who beat Hassan N'Dam N'Jikam for a vacant belt) and Nilson Julio Tapia (for the vacant Quigg-type WBA-lite belt).

If anyone else had written that, they'd have been called "fanboys".

It's not conkers. Canelo didn't beat Martinez, Pavlik, Taylor or Hopkins therefore to imply some kind of credit should be given is ludicrous. Fury beat Wlad who beat Haye who beat Audley who beat Danny Williams who beat Tyson who beat Holmes who beat Ali...it means jack sh!t.

He needs to get aggressive.

Gate crash press conferences, start swearing, get controversial, jump into the ring post fight etc.

He's too easy to ignore at the moment.

Do all that while moving up as nobody is there at 160.

DAVE667 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Let's hope Canelo gets rid of the fraud champion..

At 154? What does that make Canelo at 160?

I regard GGG as the true middleweight champion.........

Canelo beat Cotto who beat Martinez who beat Pavlik who beat Taylor who beat Hopkins.

GGG beat Lemiuex (who beat Hassan N'Dam N'Jikam for a vacant belt) and Nilson Julio Tapia (for the vacant Quigg-type WBA-lite belt).

If anyone else had written that, they'd have been called "fanboys".

It's not conkers. Canelo didn't beat Martinez, Pavlik, Taylor or Hopkins therefore to imply some kind of credit should be given is ludicrous. Fury beat Wlad who beat Haye who beat Audley who beat Danny Williams who beat Tyson who beat Holmes who beat Ali...it means jack sh!t.

No, it's boxing. Fury beat Wlad who established himself as undisputed top man when he beat the next best guy (Povetkin).

Like it or not, Canelo holds the line from Hopkins (and is regarded as the lineal middleweight boss as a result).

The likes of Fury and Rigondeaux are generally regarded as the bosses of their divisions. Even Carl Frampton has admitted Rigo is the true champion. He earned that by beating Donaire.

If you don't fancy that simple, logical (and traditional way) of recognising who is the best fighter in each division then good luck with the alphabets.

hazharrison wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Let's hope Canelo gets rid of the fraud champion..

At 154? What does that make Canelo at 160?

I regard GGG as the true middleweight champion.........

Canelo beat Cotto who beat Martinez who beat Pavlik who beat Taylor who beat Hopkins.

GGG beat Lemiuex (who beat Hassan N'Dam N'Jikam for a vacant belt) and Nilson Julio Tapia (for the vacant Quigg-type WBA-lite belt).

If anyone else had written that, they'd have been called "fanboys".

It's not conkers. Canelo didn't beat Martinez, Pavlik, Taylor or Hopkins therefore to imply some kind of credit should be given is ludicrous. Fury beat Wlad who beat Haye who beat Audley who beat Danny Williams who beat Tyson who beat Holmes who beat Ali...it means jack sh!t.

No, it's boxing. Fury beat Wlad who established himself as undisputed top man when he beat the next best guy (Povetkin).

Like it or not, Canelo holds the line from Hopkins (and is regarded as the lineal middleweight boss as a result).

The likes of Fury and Rigondeaux are generally regarded as the bosses of their divisions. Even Carl Frampton has admitted Rigo is the true champion. He earned that by beating Donaire.

If you don't fancy that simple, logical (and traditional way) of recognising who is the best fighter in each division then good luck with the alphabets.

Lineal balls be damned, you can't cite Hopkins as a marker of Canelo's claim to be the best MW on the planet any more than Ali being a marker of Fury's position. Frampton acknowledges Rigo because Rigo's a good fighter and Frampton isn't arrogant enough to claim otherwise. Wilder however disputes Fury's claim to be the best and therefore the best way to sort it is for them to fight as opposed to playing "well, who did the guy that you beat beat?"

It's to be hoped Frampton or Quigg face Rigo and we can see who's the best in that division. What I'm not prepared to accept carte blanche is Canelo's claim to be the best MW when there's the likes of GGG. I don't give sh!t who he's fought, I pick him to do Canelo but if not, so be it however, let them actually fight to sort it out rather than talk about who held the title fifteen years ago

Let's look at your man Haye for example:

Lennox Lewis (who beat Evander Holyfield to unify the belts) was stripped of the WBA version for facing the universally recognised top challenger Michael Grant (who'd beaten Andrew Golota) rather than John Ruiz.

Evander Holyfield then wins the belt back by beating Ruiz (not Lewis). Ruiz then beats him and loses it to Roy Jones (all the while, Lewis remains the true, universally recognised champion). Eventually it falls into the hands of Valuev, who loses to Chagaev. Chagaev defends against the mighty Matt Skelton but then falls injured.

The WBA think, 'sod this, while he's lame, nobody's paying' and call him a 'champion in recess'. They then allow Valuev and Ruiz to contest the belt (creating a couple of WBA champions).

Haye then knocks off Valuev.

All through this period, none of these fighters are ranked as the best fighter at heavyweight (that would be Lewis and then the Klitschkos).

But hey, if you think my explanation means jack sh!t.......

DAVE667 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Let's hope Canelo gets rid of the fraud champion..

At 154? What does that make Canelo at 160?

I regard GGG as the true middleweight champion.........

Canelo beat Cotto who beat Martinez who beat Pavlik who beat Taylor who beat Hopkins.

GGG beat Lemiuex (who beat Hassan N'Dam N'Jikam for a vacant belt) and Nilson Julio Tapia (for the vacant Quigg-type WBA-lite belt).

If anyone else had written that, they'd have been called "fanboys".

It's not conkers. Canelo didn't beat Martinez, Pavlik, Taylor or Hopkins therefore to imply some kind of credit should be given is ludicrous. Fury beat Wlad who beat Haye who beat Audley who beat Danny Williams who beat Tyson who beat Holmes who beat Ali...it means jack sh!t.

No, it's boxing. Fury beat Wlad who established himself as undisputed top man when he beat the next best guy (Povetkin).

Like it or not, Canelo holds the line from Hopkins (and is regarded as the lineal middleweight boss as a result).

The likes of Fury and Rigondeaux are generally regarded as the bosses of their divisions. Even Carl Frampton has admitted Rigo is the true champion. He earned that by beating Donaire.

If you don't fancy that simple, logical (and traditional way) of recognising who is the best fighter in each division then good luck with the alphabets.

Lineal balls be damned, you can't cite Hopkins as a marker of Canelo's claim to be the best MW on the planet any more than Ali being a marker of Fury's position. Frampton acknowledges Rigo because Rigo's a good fighter and Frampton isn't arrogant enough to claim otherwise. Wilder however disputes Fury's claim to be the best and therefore the best way to sort it is for them to fight as opposed to playing "well, who did the guy that you beat beat?"

It's to be hoped Frampton or Quigg face Rigo and we can see who's the best in that division. What I'm not prepared to accept carte blanche is Canelo's claim to be the best MW when there's the likes of GGG. I don't give sh!t who he's fought, I pick him to do Canelo but if not, so be it however, let them actually fight to sort it out rather than talk about who held the title fifteen years ago

You can, and plenty do (including many of the networks and more creditable news sources.

Fury is the top man because he beat the previous top man - that's how it works! Wilder has beaten something like one top ten ranked heavyweight in his career. He's a contender.

Golovkin is probably the best fighter at middleweight but Canelo is the lineal king. He holds a better win (over Cotto) than anything Golovkin has on his record.

Yes Cotto's win over Martinez was opportunistic considering Sergio's physical state but that's cricket.

Boxing got into this sorry mess through views like your own. The only way the sport can function logically is like you said: like conkers.

hazharrison wrote:Let's look at your man Haye for example:

Lennox Lewis (who beat Evander Holyfield to unify the belts) was stripped of the WBA version for facing the universally recognised top challenger Michael Grant (who'd beaten Andrew Golota) rather than John Ruiz.

Evander Holyfield then wins the belt back by beating Ruiz (not Lewis). Ruiz then beats him and loses it to Roy Jones (all the while, Lewis remains the true, universally recognised champion). Eventually it falls into the hands of Valuev, who loses to Chagaev. Chagaev defends against the mighty Matt Skelton but then falls injured.

The WBA think, 'sod this, while he's lame, nobody's paying' and call him a 'champion in recess'. They then allow Valuev and Ruiz to contest the belt (creating a couple of WBA champions).

Haye then knocks off Valuev.

All through this period, none of these fighters are ranked as the best fighter at heavyweight (that would be Lewis and then the Klitschkos).

But hey, if you think my explanation means jack sh!t.......

It does mean jack sh!t because no-one considered Haye the best HW on the planet based on who'd held the belt previously which your argument re Canelo. Using the ancient Hopkins, long retired Pavlik and criminally insane Taylor is surely no rational justification is it?

DAVE667 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Let's look at your man Haye for example:

Lennox Lewis (who beat Evander Holyfield to unify the belts) was stripped of the WBA version for facing the universally recognised top challenger Michael Grant (who'd beaten Andrew Golota) rather than John Ruiz.

Evander Holyfield then wins the belt back by beating Ruiz (not Lewis). Ruiz then beats him and loses it to Roy Jones (all the while, Lewis remains the true, universally recognised champion). Eventually it falls into the hands of Valuev, who loses to Chagaev. Chagaev defends against the mighty Matt Skelton but then falls injured.

The WBA think, 'sod this, while he's lame, nobody's paying' and call him a 'champion in recess'. They then allow Valuev and Ruiz to contest the belt (creating a couple of WBA champions).

Haye then knocks off Valuev.

All through this period, none of these fighters are ranked as the best fighter at heavyweight (that would be Lewis and then the Klitschkos).

But hey, if you think my explanation means jack sh!t.......

It does mean jack sh!t because no-one considered Haye the best HW on the planet based on who'd held the belt previously which your argument re Canelo. Using the ancient Hopkins, long retired Pavlik and criminally insane Taylor is surely no rational justification is it?

It's perfectly rational unless you're determined to see something else (which appears to be either that Haye was something he wasn't or Fury is something he isn't).

No-one considered Haye the best heavyweight around because he didn't prove it by beating the top man (and when he eventually got the chance to, he was woefully exposed).

Canelo-Cotto-Martinez-Pavlik-Taylor-Hopkins
Fury-Klitschko.....Lewis-Rahman-Lewis

Simple.

You are simple lad, it's gubbins

DAVE667 wrote:You are simple lad, it's gubbins

Aye but happy. Far more logical than anything you could propose following the alphabet soup.

What a load of bollox.

hazharrison wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:You are simple lad, it's gubbins

Aye but happy. Far more logical than anything you could propose following the alphabet soup.

They do say ignorance is bliss

Try the evidence of one's own eyes. Canelo cannot be the best MW on the planet by virtue of Jermaine Taylor having beaten Bernard Hopkins twice long ago in a land far, far away. Any simpleton (barring, it seems, a notable exception) should be able to see that

DAVE667 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:You are simple lad, it's gubbins

Aye but happy. Far more logical than anything you could propose following the alphabet soup.

They do say ignorance is bliss

Try the evidence of one's own eyes. Canelo cannot be the best MW on the planet by virtue of Jermaine Taylor having beaten Bernard Hopkins twice long ago in a land far, far away. Any simpleton (barring, it seems, a  notable exception) should be able to see that

I haven't said he's the best. He's the champion.

Golovkin would be my pick as the best middleweight (but we need to see him prove that first).

TopHat24/7 wrote:What a load of bollox.

The alphabets? Damn straight.

Any system that has Stevie Cruz as the real champ over Nelson...Or Canelo over GGG...

Is complete turdywurdy..

hazharrison wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:What a load of bollox.

The alphabets? Damn straight.

No, your analysis/logic.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Any system that has Stevie Cruz as the real champ over Nelson...Or Canelo over GGG...

Is complete turdywurdy..

The system boxing was founded on (and ran by for decades).

Anyone in favour of splintered titles or recognising more than one champion is part of the problem.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:What a load of bollox.

The alphabets? Damn straight.

No, your analysis/logic.

Go on then, for the sheer f&ckery of it, give me your version of a logical answer.

Dave has already spelt it out.

We've had this situation for decades.

Floyd Patterson was once heavyweight champion, right? Only most people felt that Sonny Liston was the best heavyweight in the world. Patterson's handlers weren't keen to feed Patterson to Liston and so they kept him busy fighting the likes of Ingo. The fact Patterson delayed facing Liston doesn't mean he wasn't the heavyweight champion.

I'm sure if the ABC s had been as rampant back then, Liston could have picked up the IBC, AAA, TNT versions of some belt or another and had fans arguing he was the legit champ. He wasn't, though. He wasn't until he splattered Floyd.

That's a similar tale to Spinks-Tyson and where we are now with Golovkin-Canelo (and Cotto before him).

Lineal championships are the only logical way of determining who the true champion at each weight is (never more so than in 2016). It isn't perfect (largely because it's all hypothetical - other than the Ring belt) but it's a damn sight better than trying to make sense of the ABC rubbish (whose decisions are based solely on which fighters will return the highest sanctioning fees).

'Champions' winning belts not at the full actual weight and then refusing to defend them against legitimate ranked challengers at the full actual weight has been around for decades??

I know I'm very weak on boxing history, but I did think this was a relatively new phenomenon......

TopHat24/7 wrote:'Champions' winning belts not at the full actual weight and then refusing to defend them against legitimate ranked challengers at the full actual weight has been around for decades??

I know I'm very weak on boxing history, but I did think this was a relatively new phenomenon......

You're right, however, Canelo is fighting between 154-160, which makes him a middleweight (champ).

The scenario (outside of the catch weight c rap is a familiar one, though).

Boxing needs same day weigh ins - that would put an end to fighters playing the system.

His opponents aren't fighting at a weight between 154 and 160 though, are they? They are fighting at a weight between 154 and 155.

There's no legitimacy to Canelo as a middleweight.

TopHat24/7 wrote:His opponents aren't fighting at a weight between 154 and 160 though, are they? They are fighting at a weight between 154 and 155.

There's no legitimacy to Canelo as a middleweight.

Be that as it may, he's the lineal champ (as per Ring, HBO, countless other outlets).

And lineal is meaningless BS, for the reasons outlined. Like an idiot's way to assess a ranking.

TopHat24/7 wrote:And lineal is meaningless BS, for the reasons outlined.  Like an idiot's way to assess a ranking.

I don’t understand your gripe.

1. Lineal is the system boxing was founded upon. To become the champion (not a champion) you had to beat the champion. This is the way the sport ran for decades. Boxing should never be more complicated than that.
2. There is no alternative method offering a consensus view on who the true champion is in each division. Each division (there are something like 17) has umpteen “champions” atop umpteen sets of illogical rankings.
3. In the case of Canelo: yes his catch weight demands are unfortunate, however, 155 lbs. falls within the confines of middleweight. Canelo beat the man who beat the man dating back to when Hopkins unified the belts – it isn’t even a long lineage. Is he the best middleweight in the world? Probably not. Yet he holds that line via Cotto, Martinez, Pavlik, Taylor and Hopkins. There is no other title lineage that makes more sense than that (I already pointed out on another thread how Golovkin’s claims are no more valid than Charles Martin's at heavyweight).
4. Canelo's demands (like Cotto's before him) merely mark him out as a poor champion. He could, of course, change that with his results (beating Golovkin, for example).

Middleweight lineage:

Marvin Hagler (1980-1987)
"Sugar" Ray Leonard (1987, vacated title)
Michael Nunn (1989-1991)
James Toney (1991-1993, vacated title)
Bernard Hopkins (2001- 2005)
Jermain Taylor (2005-2007)
Kelly Pavlik (2007-2010)
Sergio Martinez (2010-2014)
Miguel Angel Cotto (2014-2015)
Saul Alvarez (2015-present)

hazharrison wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:And lineal is meaningless BS, for the reasons outlined.  Like an idiot's way to assess a ranking.

I don’t understand your gripe.

1. Lineal is the system boxing was founded upon. To become the champion (not a champion) you had to beat the champion. This is the way the sport ran for decades. Boxing should never be more complicated than that.
2. There is no alternative method offering a consensus view on who the true champion is in each division. Each division (there are something like 17) has umpteen “champions” atop umpteen sets of illogical rankings.
3. In the case of Canelo: yes his catch weight demands are unfortunate, however, 155 lbs. falls within the confines of middleweight. Canelo beat the man who beat the man dating back to when Hopkins unified the belts – it isn’t even a long lineage. Is he the best middleweight in the world? Probably not. Yet he holds that line via Cotto, Martinez, Pavlik, Taylor and Hopkins. There is no other title lineage that makes more sense than that (I already pointed out on another thread how Golovkin’s claims are no more valid than Charles Martin's at heavyweight).
4. Canelo's demands (like Cotto's before him) merely mark him out as a poor champion. He could, of course, change that with his results (beating Golovkin, for example).

Middleweight lineage:

Marvin Hagler (1980-1987)
"Sugar" Ray Leonard (1987, vacated title)
Michael Nunn (1989-1991)
James Toney (1991-1993, vacated title)
Bernard Hopkins (2001- 2005)
Jermain Taylor (2005-2007)
Kelly Pavlik (2007-2010)
Sergio Martinez (2010-2014)
Miguel Angel Cotto (2014-2015)
Saul Alvarez (2015-present)

But lineal is surely flawed when a boxer has vacated his title and the next people to fight for the title haven't beaten that Champion and the top ranked fighters in that division aren't ranked by that body as they are champions with another.

This seems like a pointless argument that is only debated because the best no longer fight the best.

huw wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:And lineal is meaningless BS, for the reasons outlined.  Like an idiot's way to assess a ranking.

I don’t understand your gripe.

1. Lineal is the system boxing was founded upon. To become the champion (not a champion) you had to beat the champion. This is the way the sport ran for decades. Boxing should never be more complicated than that.
2. There is no alternative method offering a consensus view on who the true champion is in each division. Each division (there are something like 17) has umpteen “champions” atop umpteen sets of illogical rankings.
3. In the case of Canelo: yes his catch weight demands are unfortunate, however, 155 lbs. falls within the confines of middleweight. Canelo beat the man who beat the man dating back to when Hopkins unified the belts – it isn’t even a long lineage. Is he the best middleweight in the world? Probably not. Yet he holds that line via Cotto, Martinez, Pavlik, Taylor and Hopkins. There is no other title lineage that makes more sense than that (I already pointed out on another thread how Golovkin’s claims are no more valid than Charles Martin's at heavyweight).
4. Canelo's demands (like Cotto's before him) merely mark him out as a poor champion. He could, of course, change that with his results (beating Golovkin, for example).

Middleweight lineage:

Marvin Hagler (1980-1987)
"Sugar" Ray Leonard (1987, vacated title)
Michael Nunn (1989-1991)
James Toney (1991-1993, vacated title)
Bernard Hopkins (2001- 2005)
Jermain Taylor (2005-2007)
Kelly Pavlik (2007-2010)
Sergio Martinez (2010-2014)
Miguel Angel Cotto (2014-2015)
Saul Alvarez (2015-present)

But lineal is surely flawed when a boxer has vacated his title and the next people to fight for the title haven't beaten that Champion and the top ranked fighters in that division aren't ranked by that body as they are champions with another.

This seems like a pointless argument that is only debated because the best no longer fight the best.

It's defo flawed as fighters chase belts rather than lineal championships. Maybe Haymon will adopt one set of rankings and have one champion in his PBC takeover?

So if Canelo never fights GGG....

GGG could retire never being a world champion..

Complete and utter baloney..

The moment the lineal championship is won at a catchweight the lineage is broken as far as i'm concerned, Cotto was never THE champion because he didn't win the title at the full Middleweight limit. Tony Canzoneri wasn't widely considered to be the 140lb champion when he beat Berg at 135lbs because of that very reason, his legitimacy was only lineally recognised by the ring magazine once Berg lost at the full limit.

Phil Marder and Nigel Collins tried this linear and 8 champions crap at Ring magazine and ended up needing KO magazine's Farhood's help to save it..

With the belts and politics of the modern era it is a redundant idea..

Though we'd all like to see less titles..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:So if Canelo never fights GGG....

GGG could retire never being a world champion..

Complete and utter baloney..

He'll retire having been as much a champion as Liam Smith. He'll never have had the chance to be THE champ - from Pavlik to Canelo.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The moment the lineal championship is won at a catchweight the lineage is broken as far as i'm concerned, Cotto was never THE champion because he didn't win the title at the full Middleweight limit. Tony Canzoneri wasn't widely considered to be the 140lb champion when he beat Berg at 135lbs because of that very reason, his legitimacy was only lineally recognised by the ring magazine once Berg lost at the full limit.

That's as far as you're concerned. Puts you in a minority.

I very much doubt it, nobody takes any notice of the lineal crap any more.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I very much doubt it, nobody takes any notice of the lineal crap any more.

Na, everyone's well into following the alphabet gubbins!

Yes they do, Frampton against Quigg is a unification between two champions, Rigondeaux doesn't get factored into it at all.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Yes they do, Frampton against Quigg is a unification between two champions, Rigondeaux doesn't get factored into it at all.

Paper champions. Frampton admits that to be the true champ you need to beat Rigo. Quigg's title was straight out of a cornflake packet.

If Haz says it's gubbins then it's gubbins...