Navigating Boxing's Alphabet Titles Part 5: Lineal and Ring Championships
After looking at the alphabet soup, we finally come to the lineal championship and the Ring Magazine championship - the two ways someone can truly claim to be the world champ in boxing. Both championships have the same foundation - the man who beat the man is the man, period. If there is no 'man', then a new one is created when the best beats the best.
While the Ring Magazine titlist isn't necessarily the true champion, a lot of people use is as a proxy for being the true champ. The rules for becoming the champ are rather simple: If you beat the champ, you become the champ, and if there is no champ and If the guy ranked #1 and the guy ranked #2 fight each other, then the winner is the new champ. Occasionally, there are exceptions to this rule, leading to the divergence between the Ring champ and the lineal champ. If agreed by the editorial board of the magazine, then a fight between #1 and #3 can create a new championship. This is usually reserved for special circumstances, such as if #1 already recently beat #2, or if there's a good reason why #1 and #2 will never fight (such as the Klitschko brothers). Also, when Ring ceased publication for a while, it did not pick back up its old champions when it restarted publication, which led to some divergence in the Light Heavyweight and Flyweight divisions.
So the champ comes down to the rankings themselves. Contrary to somewhat popular belief, Golden Boy, owner of the Magazine, does not control the rankings, and Oscar de la Hoya does not manipulate the rankings for his own benefit. Instead, the rankings are compiled by the magazine's four man editorial board, with significant input from 37 panelists who submit their own rankings. The panelists include a number of prominent boxing writers and commentators, such as Joe Tessitore, Barry McGuigan, Nick Charles and Doug Fischer, While this isn't a perfect system, it does tend to get a more balanced viewpoint than rankings compiled by only a few people, as they are compiled by most of the ABCs. The biggest knocks are that the panel does tend to be very Anglocentric, with all but a few panelists hailing from the United States or England, and that the editorial board still has room to move guys up or down in its discretion.
What actually constitutes the lineal championship is a source of constant debate. When there was one sanctioning body, it was easy - the champ of that body was THE champ. Even when there were two bodies, for the most part, when one person held both belts, he became the champ. With four major belts run by money grubbing organizations who like to strip titlists in order to maximize revvenue, the equation becomes much more complicated. If you needed to get all four belts to become lineal champ, then the only lineal champ of the four belt era would be Bernard Hopkins at middleweight (and his successors). The two more reasonable approaches are that someone becomes lineal champ when #1 beats #2, or when someone is the only person in a weight class who can legitimately claim to be the top dog. For the purposes of this article, I'm taking the first approach, allthough because there is a split view on this issue, and because there is no specific set of rankings that every individual relies on, calling someone the lineal champ is inherently subjective.
While there are no less than 90 fighters who can claim to be an ABC titlist at the moment (whether as a regular champ, super champ, interim champ, silver champ or double rainbow across the entire sky champ), there are only a few people who can claim to be the true champion of the world right now:
Heavyweight - Wladimir Klitschko became the Ring champion when he beat Ruslan Chagaev, who was ranked #3 at the time. The lineal championship is vacant, as Wladimir will never fight the man at #2, his brother Vitali.
Light Heavyweight - Here's an area of some controversy. Jean Pascal was recently named the Ring titlist, and after they restarted publication, Roy Jones became their champ on a 1 vs. 3 exception. But you could argue that either Pascal or Zsolt Erdei is the true lineal champion at the moment. Erdei's lineage traces from beating Julio Cesar Gonzalez, who beat Dariusz Michalczewski, who beat Virgil Hill, who beat Henry Maske to create the lineage. If you believe that Erdei vacated by moving up to cruiserweight and not fighting since, then you could easily argue that Pascal is the lineal champ, as he was the clear #2 guy when he beat the clear #1 guy in Chad Dawson.
Middleweight - No controversies here. Bernard Hopkins was the sole undisputed champ of the four belt era. Jermain Taylor beat him, then Kelly Pavlik beat Taylor, then Sergio Martinez beat Pavlik, making him the true champ.
Junior welterweight - If you think he hasn't vacated by not fighting there for a couple years (with no indication he'll ever drop back down), then it's Manny Pacquiao, who beat Hatton, who beat Tszyu, who beat Judah to create the lineage. Most people believe this is vacant.
Lightweight - Juan Manuel Marquez beat Joel Casamayor, who beat Chico Corrales, who beat Jose Luis Castillo to create the lineage. Even though Corrales lost the rematch to Castillo, he didn't lose the championship because Castillo failed to make weight.
Flyweight - This is by far the longest lineage. Pongsaklek Wonjongkam beat Kameda, who beat Naito, who beat Wonjongkam, to beat Tunacao, who beat Singsurat, who beat Pacquiao, who beat Sakasul, who beat Arbachakov, who beat Muangchai, who beat Chitalada, who beat Kim, who beat Chitalada, who beat Bernal, who beat Kobayashi, who beat Cedeno, who beat Magri, who beat Mercedes, who beat Castillo, who beat Cardona, who beat Avelar, who beat Oguma, who beat Park, who beat Canto, who beat Gonzalez to create the lineage. But Pongsaklek only recently became the Ring champ because of when the magazine ceased publication.
Light Fly - Giovanni Segura, who beat Ivan Calderon, who beat Hugo Cazares to create the lineage.
21 comments
|
Do you like this story?
Comments
For me, the Ring's rating are no better than that of a serious poster or serious fan. I have no confidence in them.
Pray for Nick Charles
It's a legitimate gripe
There are two systems I think are better: the IBO, and Yahoo. I might do a sixth part that talks about the fringe titles, in which case I’ll discuss the IBO’s computer rankings (which are pretty damn good, all things considered). Yahoo’s is sort of like Ring’s, only without the editorial board and an even bigger number of voters. Their rankings tend to look more on the money to me than Ring’s. Of course, they’re a little problematic still in that 90% of the voters are American. It would be nice if there was a poll, like the USA Today coaches poll or something, where like 100 knowledgeable voters from all around the world voted.
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
But I'm a big believer in the wisdom of the crowd
As long as you have the right crowd.
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
The IBO’s actual rankings are not too bad but i don’t like how they put all the belt holders in an upper echelon and then list the rest of the division.The top 10 should include the belt holders and in some cases they shouldn’t even be in the top 10.
Often the IBO title is a joke too,for e.g. when they have someone like Lovemore N’Dou as their 147lb champ.
The Ring’s rankings are a good guide for newcomers to the sport and are usually pretty accurate(apart from one or two strange ones like Nonito Donaire in the upper half of the P4P).I don’t see how you can get much fairer than polling a large group of respected
analysts,though i agree that they should use some from outside the US and the UK.
As far as i am aware Yahoo only do P4P ranking which is not enough if talking about the best place to look for a guide.
And
at least all of the Ring champs are legit,no one can really argue with that,whereas many holes can be picked with the WBC,WBA,IBF,WBO and IBO “champs”.
The IBO championship is sort of a joke
But their rankings are otherwise very good. The problem is that they’ll sanction a title fight between #25 and #50 in their rankings if everyone else passes, and that they don’t have mandatories.
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
Computerized rankings seem right
Something like what they have in tennis. Obviously it doesn’t – and shouldn’t be considered to – tell what boxer is better than another or who would likely beat who. But it’s an objective way to rank fighters based on what they’ve done as opposed to what experts think they will do. Of course, how criteria are weighted is a subjective choice, but once that’s decided, each fighter would have the same objective system to deal with. I’d be interested in the difference between the computerized systems of, say, the IBO and Boxrec (which I can hardly ever check out anymore because of the viruses that attack there, but anyway…).
As far as championships are concerned, the Ring’s criteria seem as good as or better than any…unless I’m missing something.
the thing is, I did ESB's rankings for many years and research methodoly techniques and benchmarking
that the Ring people don’t even have aclue about. Ranking is not easy but once you get a first good list, the rest is not all that difficult. You come up with your variables and the rest follows.
The Ring guys have no clue on real research methodolgy and it drives me nuts. Are you feeling me on this?
Pray for Nick Charles
I feel ya
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
But The Ring does have the SuperMiddleWeight Division Rankins right !!!
1) Bute..2) Ward…unlike many who have the overblown Ward ahead of Bute !!!
It's not a matter of "IF" the North will break you.It's a matter of "WHEN" the North will break you.For up here every year counts as two on the outside.
by Ghostman (Son of the Wolf) on Oct 2, 2010 7:30 AM EDT up reply actions
I understand this
But the only important thing for titlists is either 1 &2 or 1 &3 so it matters less (generally 1, 2, and 3 seem pretty reasaonble).
But yeah, I often find there are some head scrathcer rankings.
by journeyintosound on Oct 1, 2010 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions
There’s a direct tradeoff between increasing the accuracy of the rankings vs. decreasing the potential for hijinks. The potential for hijinks in the Ring rankings is pretty low, since no one voter can move the rankings much. All of the accusations of foul play or manipulation that I’ve ever seen leveled against the Ring have been totally weak and implausible. At the same time, since no one voter has very much control over the final results, no one voter spends a lot of time making sure his vote is correct. What you end up with is a ranking that’s clearly been put together by a bunch of lazy sportswriters, but at least it isn’t completely off-the-wall or corrupt.
Huh. The ranking are bad becuase the those who do the ranking don't know how to rank.
Has nothing to do with manipulation or corruption.
a ranking that’s clearly been put together by a bunch of lazy sportswriters
is truly what it is.
Pray for Nick Charles
Main problem with the Ring
They seem to weight their ranking towards fighters who tend to be older. Also if the fighter looks terrible, there is a huge resistance to significantly lowering the ranking of the fighter. These are my main gripes with these rankings.
"The bell that tolls for all in boxing belongs to a cash register."
-Bob Verdi
Do not knock the double-rainbow title
It’s legit, and absolutely beautiful.
"If winning isn't everything, then why do they keep score?"
-Vince Lombardi
The Peoples Champions are all that matters !!! The Court of Public Opinion !!!
Who cares about the alphabet Titles which are only in effect so they can sanction fights and make the fighters pay for the belts usage and status !!! I wish a Champion from any division would drop the belt and ignore the sanctioning fees for any of the belts and just fight the best challengers.The public and media would acknowledge the fighters even without the trinkets as the internet is the key to the future rankings as every person plugged in with an opinion has a vote.
It's not a matter of "IF" the North will break you.It's a matter of "WHEN" the North will break you.For up here every year counts as two on the outside.
by Ghostman (Son of the Wolf) on Oct 2, 2010 7:35 AM EDT reply actions

by 
























