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.

 

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.

 

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!

 

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!

 

Good arguments. :good

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

The Wlad-Iggy winner will be RING champ, wait and see

 

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 Woodcock. 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.