List of fighters Pac should fought instead of Hatton, Cotto, Clottey, Marg & Mosley?

[whirlwind]

fought em all coming from big losses and at catch weight..why didnt he fight mosley when mosley rocked up to his gym? You know the time when freddie roach said you're too good of a fighter shane!!!! Yes now he's older and been beaten by mayweather..he's welcome now

JMM, Barrera, Diaz, Oscar, Hatton, Cotto, Margarito and Mosley won their last fights or two before the Pac fight. Some may had previous losses but don't make it sound like they lost to a bum. They lose to their fellow elite fighters and that is pretty normal when you fighting the best in your division.

[edgarg]

Pac doesn't have a "world" (WBC,IBF,WBO,WBA) title at 126 either or 140 but he's considered the lineal champ of the division back then when he beat MAB.

Lineal championship means "the man who beat the man at the division." You don't need a corrupt sanctioning body like the WBC,WBA,IBF,WBO to be recognized as the legit champ at the division. When you beat the recognized man at the division you're considered to the lineal champ.

Lineal Championship>Alphabet soup title

Fact.

Manny P. and Barrera fought as featherweights and, again according to Boxrec, there was NO title at stake, although they came in at the featherweight limit. This fight had no connection with the 140 lb div. as your comment seems to imply, probably just a hasty choice of words. In fact, he tried to take a featherweight title from Marquez in his next fight, which was (unjustly I believe) called a draw.

So, as well as never holding a 118 or 140 world title Manny P. never held the 126 lb. title either, as he went on to win the 130 lb title in his next fight. So that makes him, not a 6 weight champ as I thought and posted earlier, but a 5 weight champ. He spans 8 divisions it's true, but in 3 of those divisions he did not win the titles. By today's accepted reasoning, then Roy Jones should have been recognised as a 5 div champ instead of 4, from Middle to Heavy, even though he didn't win a Cruiser title. But he's always referred to even by himself, as a 4 div. champ. I'm getting confused.................

To be "the man" is not neccessarily to be the LINEAL champ. Lineality has to be acquired by legal succession. That fans or authorities might think that Barrera was the best in the division has no bearing on lineality unless he actually won the 126 lb title from the previous lineal holder, or fought for the lineal position. I don't know if he did this. It has to be arranged and announced not by the promoters, but the Commissions.

There have been many times in boxing history, when there have been terrific, unbeatable fighters at various weights, who undoubtedly were "the man" in those weights, but they were NOT recognised as the Lineal Champs. So, correctly, sometimes for years at a time, there were no lineal champs in a certain division.

Lineal means lineal, and that requires legitimate descent, there's no getting around it

[edgarg]

tszyu beat judah, hatton beat tzysu and pac beat hatton=lineal champion and along the way all the little trinket belts were stripped. a linear title is still a title and it's worth a hell of a lot more than a wbc, wba crap belt.

Judah, by beating Spinks as I recall, took 3 belts. (The WBO was not included). And then lost to Baldomir for the WBC belt only. (A loss of a single belt implies stripping of the others I think). It used to be that although losing a belt meant stripping of any others held, those others then became vacant) None of this impies lineality, because lineal succession of each of these belts could have been broken, where the lineality had not been restored. I don't know, do you, perhaps? It's a technical point but a real one nevertheless.

I never normally bother myself with these trivia, but the question came up and I just wanted to clarify "lineal". I think it takes a real boxing historian who has tracked the lineage of each weight class from it's beginning, or interruption and renewal..

I'm going to bed. It's been a pleasant discussion, thank you.

[edgarg]

Pac beat Hatton who beat Tszyu who was the lineal champ. That's the line of succession right there. And I already do know that the lineal title in the absence that the champ retires or moves to another division is started by the top 2 contenders who wins that fight.

But you were saying that when Pac beat Hatton there was no "major" title on the line, so Pac was no champ. Myself and the other guy said Pac was a legit champ because he just just beat the lineal champ who was Hatton. Yeah you can say Pac wasn't champ at 140 if you count the corrupt ABC titles as only legit titles, which no hardcore boxing fan or historian really counts in this day and age.

Whatever "hard core" boxing fans think, those 4 titles, WBC, WBA, IBF< and WBO, are the recognised and accepted major titles, and all else flows from this. It still requires beating the previous lineal champ, or in case of retirement (or moving up) the fight off between the top two contenders.

There are some lineal recognised champions today I'm sure who really are NOT really lineal successors. Why?? because for promotional or TV or Arena or popularity reasons the vacant title was NOT contested by the top 2 contenders. So, in MY opinion, for example, when Marciano retired, the fight off to become the new champ was between Floyd Patterson and Archie Moore. Although I remember the fight itself well, and saw it happening, I' know that Patterson, whom I've always admired, was the #1 contender, but I don't think that Moore was the next deserving contender. I seem to recall that he got himself, although well over 40 years old, into the picture by brash self promotion, and it was the expected popularity of the matchup rather than the top 2 deserving candidates, which made this fight possible. Moore had no chance against Patterson, a built up middleweight, and it showed baldly.

So, although universally accepted as the lineal champ, Patterson, in my opinion didn't earn it. And he was ALWAYS regarded as the lineal champ during his term, although for several years, it had become obvious to all, that Sonny Liston was by far the best fighter in the division.

This just shows how carefully one needs to trace the true descent. Another case in point is that of Max Schmeling and Jack Sharkey after Tunney's retirement. Were they truly the top 2 in the division....? I don't think so, they both had had several losses each, and were not dominant. Another case was that of Shannon Briggs becoming the lineal champ by "beating" old George Foreman. Foreman became champ with a lucky punch in the 10th against Michael Moorer, although he lost every previous round convincingly. I seem to
recall that Foreman was stripped of his titles for fighting only "patsies" BEORE he lost to Briggs. So even though Foreman undeservedly succeeded Moorer, he was not any more the lineal champ when he lost to Briggs. So Briggs was never the lineal champ.

I can see that the majority of fans prefer to accept the opinions of others, who may not know what they' are talking about.

[I] must stop here or it can go on all night, i didn't know what I was getting myself into.

[Grandmarshall]

Manny P. and Barrera fought as featherweights and, again according to Boxrec, there was NO title at stake, although they came in at the featherweight limit. This fight had no connection with the 140 lb div. as your comment seems to imply, probably just a hasty choice of words. In fact, he tried to take a featherweight title from Marquez in his next fight, which was (unjustly I believe) called a draw.

So, as well as never holding a 118 or 140 world title Manny P. never held the 126 lb. title either, as he went on to win the 130 lb title in his next fight. So that makes him, not a 6 weight champ as I thought and posted earlier, but a 5 weight champ. He spans 8 divisions it's true, but in 3 of those divisions he did not win the titles. By today's accepted reasoning, then Roy Jones should have been recognised as a 5 div champ instead of 4, from Middle to Heavy, even though he didn't win a Cruiser title. But he's always referred to even by himself, as a 4 div. champ. I'm getting confused.................

To be "the man" is not neccessarily to be the LINEAL champ. Lineality has to be acquired by legal succession. That fans or authorities might think that Barrera was the best in the division has no bearing on lineality unless he actually won the 126 lb title from the previous lineal holder, or fought for the lineal position. I don't know if he did this. It has to be arranged and announced not by the promoters, but the Commissions.

There have been many times in boxing history, when there have been terrific, unbeatable fighters at various weights, who undoubtedly were "the man" in those weights, but they were NOT recognised as the Lineal Champs. So, correctly, sometimes for years at a time, there were no lineal champs in a certain division.

Lineal means lineal, and that requires legitimate descent, there's no getting around it

Dude it does not matter if there is no ABC title at stake. Lineal title means you're beating the legit champ who either was crowned the lineal champ by way of succession or who was either the no. 1 contender who beat the no. 2 contender or no. 2 who beat no. 1. Barrera was widely regarded as the lineal champ at the division at 126. Why do you keep on bringing up "Well there was no major title at stake according to boxrec." Real hardcore boxing fans don't care about the WBC, WBO...... over the legit championship (meaning lineal), neither does the boxing historians. And he got those lineal championships by way of succession. When people say "he beat the man who beat the man." It doesn't just mean he beat just the no. 1 guy but beat the guy who was the established lineal champ. And way of succession was already established for Hatton and MAB when Pac fought them. It seems like you're trying to justify that an ABC title is legit over the lineal championship with statements like "well the guy he fought didn't hold a ABC title, therefore he's not a real champ because boxrec says so."

So are you telling me that Bradley at the start of May '09 who was the WBC/WBO title holder was a legit champ of the 140 division over Hatton who didn't hold 1 of the major ABC titles? Because you're trying to justify ABC title over lineal title. That's what it sounds like to me.

Like I said lineal championships are more important than ABC titles. And you don't need to hold an ABC title to be considered the real legit champ of the division. Case in point, when Tyson was getting ready to fight Spinks, Spinks was still widely regarded as the legit champ of the division (Even Floyd Patterson said so at the time) not Tyson because he was the lineal champion, even though at that time Spinks held no ABC title as he was getting ready to fight Tyson, and Boxrec doesn't mention it, doesn't mean it wasn't for the lineal title. Also boxrec doesn't mention Spinks-Cooney for any title, but the lineal title was on the line that night. You're also basically saying just because boxrec doesn't say it's for a title means it's not for a title? Come on dude.

And BTW, Pac is only considered to be a 4 weight champ if you take away the trinkets and go by lineal. So he's not 6 or 8 or whatever. Still the most in the modern era with 4.

[Maidana vs Rios]

I trust Cliff Rold's opinion regarding Pac's claim to four lineal titles. Cliff seems like a swell guy:

//krikya360.com/pacquiao-...houghts--19677

[straightleft]

I have checked Boxrec several times, and so far, have failed to find that Manny P. ever won a major (1 of the 4) title at 118 and 140. he fought Hatton at 140 for the IBO title, really never regarded as a world title.

Perhaps someone can solve the seeming discrepancy??

Manny P. according to Boxrec fought Hatton only for the IBO title, not a recognised major title. How does this make him the "lineal" 140 lb champion?

SMH. Certainly your lack of knowledge on this particular subject made you look like a fool. Hatton beat Kostya Tszyu for the lineal championship title. Hatton beat Tszyu who beat the man who beat the man. It is common sense not to look at the paper title but the person who held the title. Like for example, After Pac beat Hatton for the IBO title...do you think if someone beat Pac after that it doesn't matter right? and no use because the IBO was not a recognized title?

[whirlwind]

Here goes down another undefeated fighter PAC ducked and should fought instead.