Fury's retirements and the lineal championship

[Willie Pep 229]

A very short history of the sanctioning bodies.

Anyone please help correct or extrapolate.

NYSAC (1920)
NBA/WBA (1921;1962)
WBC (1963)
IBF (1983)
WBO (1988)

Then it slipped into utter chaos.

Kafkod,

Who are the big four you mentioned above?

Some pointless history.

The NYSAC started declaring champions, although it seems they were never actually chartered to do so. After Frazier they stopped.

The NBA came into existence as a Midwestern reaction to NYSAC and a fear that New York would dominate the landscape.

The NBA became the WBA when it vacated its USA location (then Rhode Island) and reformed in Panama (eventually Puerto Rico) seeking a more international persona.

(I think) the WBC came into existence as a direct Mexican reaction to the WBA's Central/South American connections.

I don't know why the IBF came into existence except at the time there was no sanctioning body functioning out-of the USA. I believe its president (or chairman) was eventually imprisoned for taking bribes.

When the WBO first appeared I personaly remember it being considered a joke. Not so much now.

please correct if need be

[JAB5239]

They publish rankings based on the results of fights for the 4 universally recognised world title belts. The same title belts you claim not to recognise!

Why the insults, Pep called me a sanctioning bodies bitch for accepting their rankings. Tit for tat, all banter, no bad feeling intended.

They publish rankings on fighters and who they fight. If those fighters happened to have fought an ABC sanctioned fight it plays no part in how they rank. They are completely independent of promoters and sanctioning orgs. It really doesn't get better than that because they aren't looking to get paid, charge fighters or even deal with promoters. They're in it because of the love of the sport. I have had conversations and debates with several of their members, and when it comes to boxing, these guys are sharp and they know their history.

I get where you're coming from, I use to be there. I just don't agree with it the more I learn.

No hard feelings at all. If being asked "who's ***** are you" is the worst thing that happens to me today everything will be just fine. This has been a good conversation all things considered. While we don't agree, it hasn't really gotten nasty and I've read a lot of really good give and take.

[JAB5239]

In 2013, Mayweather and Guererro fought for the "vacant Lineage" at Welterweight.

Does that make sense to have that fight for the "vacant lineage"? Curious on people's opinions.

Being from Rhode Island i never realized the NBA was based out of there. This is why I love this forum. You can always learn something new or see something from a different perspective.

[IronDanHamza]

The Ring crowned a champion in that fight, but the TBRB didn't recognize Ghost v Mayweather as a title fight; they had Pac, Bradley, and JMM ranked ahead of Guerrero. For them the welterweight title remained vacant until Mayweather beat Pacquiao. Then Floyd retired and they crowned a new champion when Pac beat Bradley in 2016, which is where Pacquiao's sometimes-disputed claim as a five division lineal champion comes from. Then Pac retired and it remained vacant until Crawford beat Spence.

For me, the TBRB champion is the world champion. I know not everyone agrees and they don't hand out a fancy belt, but they seem to have no conflicts of interest and the most reliable rankings.

That's where it just get's ambiguous and confusing and sometimes even non sensical.

Lineage is easy to follow when it doesn't become "vacant" but when it does it's all over the place. There's no set rules how to establish a new one.

I cannot for the life of me understand how it makes any sense what so ever that Pacquaio vs Bradley in 2016 could estbalish a new Lineage at Welterweight. That is totally non sensical to me.

[Willie Pep 229]

That's where it just get's ambiguous and confusing and sometimes even non sensical.

Lineage is easy to follow when it doesn't become "vacant" but when it does it's all over the place. There's no set rules how to establish a new one.

I cannot for the life of me understand how it makes any sense what so ever that Pacquaio vs Bradley in 2016 could estbalish a new Lineage at Welterweight. That is totally non sensical to me.

Stop trying to make linear sense of it. It is not there.

The lineal title is like "luck." It only really exists when the event is over, not before.

History denotes these (bogus if you like) lineal champions. They are the ones that will echo.

It's history that counts here. For better or worst.

"What is history, but lies agreed upon."

[IronDanHamza]

Stop trying to make linear sense of it. It is not there.

The lineal title is like "luck." It only really exists when the event is over, not before.

History denotes these (bogus if you like) lineal champions. They are the ones that will echo.

It's history that counts here. For better or worst.

"What is history, but lies agreed upon."

Well yeah but Pacquaio seems to be considered "historically" as "the only ever 5 weight Lineal Champion" despite the fact his 5th one makes zero sense.

[Willie Pep 229]

Well yeah but Pacquaio seems to be considered "historically" as "the only ever 5 weight Lineal Champion" despite the fact his 5th one makes zero sense.

The evil genius of the media. The same guys who once convinced Americans they couldn't live with pre-sliced bread.

The promoters will sell a bogus lineal title as fast as they would any alphabet title. They don't care.

[famicommander]

Well yeah but Pacquaio seems to be considered "historically" as "the only ever 5 weight Lineal Champion" despite the fact his 5th one makes zero sense.

Who were your top two welterweights at the time that fight took place? Bradley had just beaten Rios and Vargas coming out of that robbery draw against Diego Chaves.

I guess you could argue Kell Brook should've been in the top 2 but I don't have a problem with having Manny and Bradley ahead of him.

[IronDanHamza]

Who were your top two welterweights at the time that fight took place? Bradley had just beaten Rios and Vargas coming out of that robbery draw against Diego Chaves.

I guess you could argue Kell Brook should've been in the top 2 but I don't have a problem with having Manny and Bradley ahead of him.

I mean you could possibly make the argument that they were the top two but isn't the whole point of making a new lineage the "consensus, universal best two fighters at the weight?" The rules again are ambiguous (another problem with this) but I'm pretty sure that is the outline of it.

Let's say they were #1 and #2, which firstly I don't agree with, but at the very least they certainly were not the "universal consensus" #1 and #2, that is for sure.

I mean, Pacquaio was coming off a loss for start. Can someone fight for a Vacant lineage coming off a loss? That doesn't make much sense to me either.

Then you've got Bradley who was 2-1-1 in his last 4, who hadn't beaten a ranked WW in 3 years at that point yet he is now somehow eligible to fight for a vacant lineage? What kind of sense does that make?

Then, on top of that, you've got a WIDE OPEN division full of contenders who were yet to fight each other such as;

Brook (Who was above BOTH of them via The Ring's ratings, which further clarifies they weren't consensus #1 and #2 universally)
Khan (Who was above Bradley via The Ring ratings)
Thurman & Porter (Who were considered two top contenders who were scheduled to fight each other at that time)
Garcia (new to the weight class from being #1 at 140 so by default in the mix)

All in the mix who were at the very least in that conversation as either title holders or contenders.

So yeah, to crown that fight with a new Lineage is non sensical if you ask me. I can't understand how it logically can be.

[famicommander]

I mean you could possibly make the argument that they were the top two but isn't the whole point of making a new lineage the "consensus, universal best two fighters at the weight?" The rules again are ambiguous (another problem with this) but I'm pretty sure that is the outline of it.

Let's say they were #1 and #2, which firstly I don't agree with, but at the very least they certainly were not the "universal consensus" #1 and #2, that is for sure.

I mean, Pacquaio was coming off a loss for start. Can someone fight for a Vacant lineage coming off a loss? That doesn't make much sense to me either.

Then you've got Bradley who was 2-1-1 in his last 4, who hadn't beaten a ranked WW in 3 years at that point yet he is now somehow eligible to fight for a vacant lineage? What kind of sense does that make?

Then, on top of that, you've got a WIDE OPEN division full of contenders who were yet to fight each other such as;

Brook (Who was above BOTH of them via The Ring's ratings, which further clarifies they weren't consensus #1 and #2 universally)
Khan (Who was above Bradley via The Ring ratings)
Thurman & Porter (Who were considered two top contenders who were scheduled to fight each other at that time)
Garcia (new to the weight class from being #1 at 140 so by default in the mix)

All in the mix who were at the very least in that conversation as either title holders or contenders.

So yeah, to crown that fight with a new Lineage is non sensical if you ask me. I can't understand how it logically can be.

I don't disagree with your sentiment but it's difficult in practice to objectively gauge a consensus sometimes, so people tend to just declare whomever has the Ring and/or TBRB championship the lineal champion. Pacquiao is also widely beloved and people aren't generally going to challenge him when he makes a claim like that.

Pac was simply not dropped from his previous spot in the rankings for losing to Floyd, and Bradley was widely seen as the winner of the Chaves fight so he wasn't punished for that draw. The Vargas win was also valued (he was undefeated and ranked #7 by TBRB at the time). It's reasonable to disagree but that, in a nutshell, is why they were in the top 2 at the time.