Klitschko vs Irbagimov for the lineal title?

Wlad Klitschko is the number one man right now, but Chagaev has the best claim to #2. Ibragimov's win over an ancient Holyfield doesn't cut much ice with me as proving him the top contender.

I don't know if a man can be anointed by consensus as lineal champion. It seems to me you have to meet the criteria--beat the man who is the man or beat all the other top contenders. Ibragimov is not even the next best contender right now.

 

Yes. And he was (and is) still recognised as the lineal champion, the man to beat. Based on that i wouldn't consider it to be unreasonable to recognise the winner of Wlad/Sultan as linear champ.

You can say the same about Wlad in the current division.

Depends. But as i've argued above, the winner of Wlad/Sultan as linear champ is not much different from Patterson/Moore, which was the standard 50 years ago at boxing's peak.

 

As I posted and it may just be my idiosyncratic position, but was Patterson really the lineal champion just because he was universally recognized because of the centralization of decision making authority in the IBC back then. He beat Jackson and Moore, but Machen also crushed Jackson, as well as Valdes and Baker. Moore was not champion. He was a contender who had been badly beaten by Marciano. I think Patterson had to defeat the top contenders such as Machen and Folley to really earn his place as the lineal champion and he did not do it.

I started a thread on "lineal champions" and would be interested in what is your definition. Maybe I don't quite understand the term.

 

But Chagaev defeated Valuev, whom I would consider far above Briggs or Holyfield at this point.

Mendoza--I started a separate thread on lineal champions. I would be very interested in what the actual definition is for most people. I would really like your thoughts.

 

My main problem is that Ibragimov is not really a top 4 contender although he is a beltholder. If Wlad fought Chagev Maskaev or Peter the case would be stronger.

When Klitschko senior fought Sanders you had two titleholders (Sanders never lost his belt in the ring), both ranked in the top 3 going at it. The case was prety strong in my opinion. Perhaps better than that of the Hart Root winner.

 

Janitor--I started a thread just to get definitions of what the criteria for a lineal champion is. I would really appreciate your opinion.

 

In my mind im thinkning it is for the heavyweight title. Wlad is not linear though, he is the best guy out there, which at this moment in time is the best we can hope for.

i agree that VK vs Sanders had a more legit claim at beaing for the linear title.

 

Linear means a straight line, it dies if a champion retires. What you then get(if your lucky!) is a new line and a new champion. Vitali should have been accorded this but now things have moved on and this fight should anoint a new champion, the others ie Maskaev, Chagaev, Valuev, Peters, Vitali, Peters, Povetkin can become the champion by beating the winner, simple?
BTW Patterson, in fairness beat the generally recognised contenders in Jackson and Moore and it is revisionalism to say that his LATER reluctance to fight Machen and Folley made himout to be not the champion in 1956, that came nearly two/three years later.

 

As I remember it, no one put it that he was not the champion. Many commentaters did say he was a cheese champion, though. By the end of 1957, Machen had a perfect record and had ko'd Jackson as decisively as Patterson, had also ko'd Valdes who had stopped Jackson, had beaten Baker, and had also beaten Maxim twice, who held a decision over Patterson. Many, and perhaps a majority, judged Machen better than Patterson.
Now this would not matter if Patterson won the title by beating the reigning lineal champion, but as is it did retroactively devalue his claim when he did not defend against Machen.

 

All minutia about different titles aside - yes.

Klitschko is by far the best HW in the world and if he beats Ibraginov it just stakes his claim even more to being the one real HW champion.

 

Enough for what?

Enough to convice me that he is the best out there by a margin?

Already convinced.

Enough to give him lineage?

That is down to the technicalities.