Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-20-2008, 03:39 PM   #1
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 14,322
vCash: 1000
Default Klitschko vs Irbagimov for the lineal title?

There is some deabte going on by media power brokers who define what lineal is and isn't.
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 02-20-2008, 04:15 PM   #2
ChrisPontius
March 8th, 1971
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Holland
Posts: 9,660
vCash: 238
Default Re: Klitschko vs Irbagimov for the lineal title?

I think it's no more than that; a definition.

Moore vs Patterson was only for the linear title because it was recognised as such; two top contenders squaring off. Klitschko vs Ibragimov is no different in that sense, two top contenders and in this case also two beltholders. Based on that, i don't think it would be wrong to see the winner as a linear title holder.
Demanding that all four titles are unified is more than what Patterson or Sharkey had to do, especially considering the nasty politics involved.
ChrisPontius is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2008, 05:07 PM   #3
janitor
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21,334
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Klitschko vs Irbagimov for the lineal title?

I think the technical claim will be shaky at best.

I would argue that the winner of Klitschko Sanders for example had a far better claim.
janitor is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2008, 06:02 PM   #4
Asterion
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,879
vCash: 75
Default Re: Klitschko vs Irbagimov for the lineal title?

Quote:
Originally Posted by janitor
I think the technical claim will be shaky at best.

I would argue that the winner of Klitschko Sanders for example had a far better claim.
I agree.
Asterion is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2008, 06:13 PM   #5
barneyrub
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,039
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Klitschko vs Irbagimov for the lineal title?

Wlad beat Byrd for the IBF belt which Byrd gained as a vacant belt while THE real champion was still Lewis. Thereby that title was inconsequential when held by Byrd, and now Wlad.

Vitali Klitschko beat sanders for the retired crown of Lewis.

Sanders was stripped of the WBO belt for facing Vitali, So technically Vitali beat the true lineage holder of the WBO title while gaining Lewis`s WBC and Ring belts.

Wlad fought for the vacant WBO title in a losing effort against Brewster. All Wlad gains from beating Sultan is the lineage of victory from his loss to Brewster.

The true WBO lineage went with the WBC, Ring and at the time the recognition as the lineal champion for holding Lewis`s belt.

Vitali passed that onto Rahman who passed it onto Maskaev.

The winner of Maskaev vs. Peter has the greatest lineal claim as champion!
barneyrub is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2008, 08:13 AM   #6
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 14,322
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Klitschko vs Irbagimov for the lineal title?

The owner and editor of the Cyber Boxing Zone, and some senior historians are pondering this question right now.

The question they are examines is not alphabet schematics. Its qualifications in a lineal vacancy period.


Comments:

The heavyweight lineal chain has been re-linked several time in periods of vacancy:

Hart vs Root....Neither beat Jeffries to be linear

Schmeling vs Sharkey...Neither beat Tunney to be linear.

Charles vs Walcott...Neither beat Louis in the ring when he was lineal champion to become linear.

Patterson vs Jackson....Neither beat Marciano to become linear.

In all cases, a match between a #1 and a solid contender was arranged to determine the new lineal champion. At least that is how history sees if.

Lewis retired as lineal champion. Perhaps the winner between Klitschko vs Ibragimov can be viewed as the new linear champion as this is the first title unification match in years. If Klitschko wins, no one has any question as to who the #1 guy is. As it stands right now, the lineal concept is on its way out. Most lineal titles are vacant, and very few modern fighters hold more than one belt. Boxing needs this concept.

Qualifications:

To date Wlad is Olympic Champ, has two belts ( IBF, IBO ) and will be fighting for a 3rd ( WBO ). In addition he's is the #1 guy by all third parties that matter....Ring Magazine, Fightnews, Box Rec, etc... What else does Wlad have to prove if he wins the title unification match?
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2008, 08:17 AM   #7
barneyrub
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,039
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Klitschko vs Irbagimov for the lineal title?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendoza
The owner and editor of the Cyber Boxing Zone, and some senior historians are pondering this question right now.

The question they are examines is not alphabet schematics. Its qualifications in a lineal vacancy period.


Comments:

The heavyweight lineal chain has been re-linked several time in periods of vacancy:

Hart vs Root....Neither beat Jeffries to be lineal

Schmeling vs Sharkey...Neither beat Tunney to be lineal.

Charles vs Walcott...Neither beat Louis in the ring when he was lineal champion to become lineal.

Patterson vs Jackson....Neither beat Marciano to become lineal.

In all cases, a match between a #1 and a solid contender was arranged to determine the new lineal champion. At least that is how history sees if.

Lewis retired as lineal champion. Perhaps Klitschko vs Ibragimov can be viewed as the new lineal champion as this is the first title unification match in years. If Klitschko wins, no one has any question as to who the #1 guy is. As it stands right now, the lineal concept is on its way out. Most lineal titles are vacant, and very few modern fighters hold more than one belt.

Qualifications:

To date Wlad is Olympic Champ, has two belts ( IBF, IBO ) and will be fighting for a 3rd ( WBO ). In addition he's is the #1 guy by all third parties that matter....Ring Magazine, Fightnews, Box Rec, etc... What else does Wlad have to prove if he wins the title unification match?
Wlad beat Byrd for the IBF belt which Byrd gained as a vacant belt while THE real champion was still Lewis. Thereby that title was inconsequential when held by Byrd, and now Wlad.

Vitali Klitschko beat sanders for the retired crown of Lewis and was billed as for the lineal title and was certainly for the WBC and Ring titles.

Sanders was stripped of the WBO belt for facing Vitali, So technically Vitali beat the true lineage holder of the WBO title while gaining Lewis`s WBC and Ring belts.

Wlad fought for the vacant WBO title in a losing effort against Brewster. All Wlad gains from beating Sultan is the lineage of victory from his loss to Brewster.

The true WBO lineage went with the WBC, Ring and at the time the recognition as the lineal champion for holding Lewis`s belt.

Vitali passed that onto Rahman who passed it onto Maskaev.

The winner of Maskaev vs. Peter has the greatest lineal claim as champion!
barneyrub is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2008, 08:39 AM   #8
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 14,322
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Klitschko vs Irbagimov for the lineal title?

Quote:
Originally Posted by barneyrub
Wlad beat Byrd for the IBF belt which Byrd gained as a vacant belt while THE real champion was still Lewis. Thereby that title was inconsequential when held by Byrd, and now Wlad.

Vitali Klitschko beat sanders for the retired crown of Lewis and was billed as for the lineal title and was certainly for the WBC and Ring titles.

Sanders was stripped of the WBO belt for facing Vitali, So technically Vitali beat the true lineage holder of the WBO title while gaining Lewis`s WBC and Ring belts.

Wlad fought for the vacant WBO title in a losing effort against Brewster. All Wlad gains from beating Sultan is the lineage of victory from his loss to Brewster.

The true WBO lineage went with the WBC, Ring and at the time the recognition as the lineal champion for holding Lewis`s belt.

Vitali passed that onto Rahman who passed it onto Maskaev.

The winner of Maskaev vs. Peter has the greatest lineal claim as champion!

WRONG! Rhaman never beat Vitlai in the ring. Vitlai accodring to fightnews.com is going to try to comeback again. Neither Maskaev nor Rhaman is #1 rated. Wlad is. The linear champions who re-started the linear flame has always been a #1 guy vs another top rated guy.

The #1 guy right now is Wlad.
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2008, 09:35 AM   #9
ChrisPontius
March 8th, 1971
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Holland
Posts: 9,660
vCash: 238
Default Re: Klitschko vs Irbagimov for the lineal title?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendoza
WRONG! Rhaman never beat Vitlai in the ring. Vitlai accodring to fightnews.com is going to try to comeback again. Neither Maskaev nor Rhaman is #1 rated. Wlad is. The linear champions who re-started the linear flame has always been a #1 guy vs another top rated guy.

The #1 guy right now is Wlad.
Good arguments.

I hope the winner of this fight will be recognised as such, so we finally have an established champion. Considering just about everyone even on the General Forum thinks Wlad is the best out there for more than two years, it's certainly rightful. And if Sultan wins, more power to him.
ChrisPontius is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2008, 10:03 AM   #10
DamonD
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Tavistock, England
Posts: 7,150
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Klitschko vs Irbagimov for the lineal title?

Wlad is certainly the #1 guy.

My problem is that I'm very unwilling to have Sultan as the #2 or #3. I would probably have him around #5.

But that's just a personal rating.
DamonD is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2008, 10:24 AM   #11
OLD FOGEY
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,835
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Klitschko vs Irbagimov for the lineal title?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisPontius
I think it's no more than that; a definition.

Moore vs Patterson was only for the linear title because it was recognised as such; two top contenders squaring off. Klitschko vs Ibragimov is no different in that sense, two top contenders and in this case also two beltholders. Based on that, i don't think it would be wrong to see the winner as a linear title holder.
Demanding that all four titles are unified is more than what Patterson or Sharkey had to do, especially considering the nasty politics involved.
I think Chagaev has a right to be in this. In fact, Patterson had a fairly weak claim on the linear championship as he did not eliminate the top challengers. Liston did. The best Patterson did was beat a man who had already been beaten badly by the old champion.

As Sharkey defeated Schmeling, Carnera, Loughran, Stribling, and Uzcudun, what exactly did he fail to prove? I understand the Schmeling decision was questionable, but Sharkey did get the nod.

It appears to me that in the 21st century the concept of a linear championship is going to be severely devalued. There might be occasional unifications, followed by an almost immediate splitting into the competing alphabet groups. Every few years an outstanding champion may seek to unify. Give Wlad credit for giving it a try.
OLD FOGEY is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2008, 10:24 AM   #12
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 14,322
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Klitschko vs Irbagimov for the lineal title?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisPontius
Good arguments.

I hope the winner of this fight will be recognised as such, so we finally have an established champion. Considering just about everyone even on the General Forum thinks Wlad is the best out there for more than two years, it's certainly rightful. And if Sultan wins, more power to him.
The winner of this fight will be the people's champ, and hold three belts. Boxing would be wise to re-kindle its linear champion concept, and I think this fight provides an opportunity to do it.

We'll see if the senior historians / media powers embrace the idea or not.
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2008, 10:48 AM   #13
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 22,414
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Klitschko vs Irbagimov for the lineal title?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendoza
The winner of this fight will be the people's champ, and hold three belts. Boxing would be wise to re-kindle its linear champion concept, and I think this fight provides an opportunity to do it.

We'll see if the senior historians / media powers embrace the idea or not.
I think this may end up like when Holmes was stripped,I seeWlad as the man ,not so sure about Ibragimov,Ive only seen clips of him ,but I suppose its a start,the division is in a pretty poor state when the likes of Maskaev are still [and rightly] viable contenders,if there was any "Iron "in the division ,he would have been put out to pasture long ago.
mcvey is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2008, 10:53 AM   #14
MrMagic
Super Six
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 19,767
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Klitschko vs Irbagimov for the lineal title?

Quote:
Originally Posted by barneyrub
The winner of Maskaev vs. Peter has the greatest lineal claim as champion!
The Wlad-Iggy winner will be RING champ, wait and see
MrMagic is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2008, 10:59 AM   #15
OLD FOGEY
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,835
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Klitschko vs Irbagimov for the lineal title?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendoza
The owner and editor of the Cyber Boxing Zone, and some senior historians are pondering this question right now.

The question they are examines is not alphabet schematics. Its qualifications in a lineal vacancy period.


Comments:

The heavyweight lineal chain has been re-linked several time in periods of vacancy:

Hart vs Root....Neither beat Jeffries to be linear

Schmeling vs Sharkey...Neither beat Tunney to be linear.

Charles vs Walcott...Neither beat Louis in the ring when he was lineal champion to become linear.

Patterson vs Jackson....Neither beat Marciano to become linear.

In all cases, a match between a #1 and a solid contender was arranged to determine the new lineal champion. At least that is how history sees if.

Lewis retired as lineal champion. Perhaps the winner between Klitschko vs Ibragimov can be viewed as the new linear champion as this is the first title unification match in years. If Klitschko wins, no one has any question as to who the #1 guy is. As it stands right now, the lineal concept is on its way out. Most lineal titles are vacant, and very few modern fighters hold more than one belt. Boxing needs this concept.

Qualifications:

To date Wlad is Olympic Champ, has two belts ( IBF, IBO ) and will be fighting for a 3rd ( WBO ). In addition he's is the #1 guy by all third parties that matter....Ring Magazine, Fightnews, Box Rec, etc... What else does Wlad have to prove if he wins the title unification match?

But what was the lineal situation in these cases. Hart beat Root and Burns beat Hart, but Johnson proved clearly the best fighter. As that boxing card you posted on another thread proved, many still accepted Jeffries as the true lineal champion until he lost to Johnson.

The situation following Tunney was also clouded. Sharkey was recognized as NBA champion after ko'ing Loughran. Schmeling defeated Sharkey on a foul but many withheld recognition. Schmeling won widespread recognition as champion by beating Stribling, a contender already bested by Sharkey. The Sharkey-Schmeling fight of 1932 made Sharkey the undisputed champion, although the decision itself was disputed. Baer proved by knockouts of Schmeling and Carnera ( who had had ko'd Sharkey & beaten Loughran) that he was clearly the champion.

After Louis retired, Charles beat Walcott to become NBA champion, but Savold won British recognition as champion by beating Wood****. Charles only solidified his claim as lineal champion by beating Louis in 1950 and was in fact only recognized universally when Louis beat Savold.

Patterson won recognition in 1956 by beating Moore who had lost badly to Marciano. That he was so readily accepted points to the centralization of promoting power in the hand of the IBC and the dearth of established challengers. Patterson's failure to later fight top men Machen and Folley clouded his claim, never strong to begin with. Johansson, as the European champion, and with ko's of Machen, and of Cooper, who had defeated Folley, was the clear top contender. His knockout of Patterson made Ingo the first lineal champion since Marciano in my judgement.



I would want to know exactly what the definition of a lineal champion is. I would say it is either the man who beat the man who was the reigning lineal champion, or a man who defeats all the other major top contenders to establish himself as the clear champion.

Hart and Burns fail both tests. Schmeling might pass if one accepts winning on a foul as a clean victory in a championship contest. Sharkey makes it as he beat all the top men, though his victory over Schmeling was a disputed decision. Charles made it by beating Louis, although he did not quite pass the second test. Patterson fails both tests from 1956 to 1959. Johansson passes on the basis of the second test and Patterson was therefore lineal champion during his second reign.
OLD FOGEY is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013