The history of title unifcation matches from 1967 to present:

[url]http://www.hbo.com/boxing/features/history/heavyweight_title.html[/url]

This is a good link. A few did you knows:


Frazier vs Ellis. Frazier, 6-1 favorite, starts slowly as always, losing the first round and almost the second. He starts landing the hook in the third and Ellis quickly unravels. He pummels Ellis throughout the third and walks through Ellis' meek counters. In the fourth a series of ripping combinations topped off by a left hook drop Ellis in the center of the ring. Another booming hook drops him again moments later. Ellis is all but dragged to his corner by trainer Angelo Dundee, who, after a few moments, tells the referee to stop the fight.

After: "He wanted to continue," says Dundee, "but he wasn't responding to my questions.


Tyson vs Tucker: Tucker rocks an onrushing Tyson with a left uppercut in the first round. He fractures his right hand in round two and for the rest of the fight he boxes cautiously from the outside and clinches and grabs whenever Tyson gets close.


Lewis vs Holyfield II. "I'm glad the scoring was like it was. Now there is no doubt." About unifying the heavyweight title, he adds: "With all this on the line coming in, I knew I had to unify the belts. Now I'm going to chill out and enjoy the moment." The title is unified for a painfully short period of time. When Lewis signs to fight rising contender Michael Grant next instead of WBA mandatory John Ruiz, he is stripped of the WBA title. The world heavyweight title has remained splintered - and therefore vacant - ever since.

Enter Klitschko vs Ibragimov....

 

Did you read the link? It starts in 1967 with the alphabets.

 

Klitschko vs Ibragimov is a title unification match. These are rare. While Lewis vs Holyfield was more significant, Holyfield was past his best when they meet. Both Klitschko and Ibragimov are in their primes. There is also a clash of styles, and some animosity between the two camps. History will be made.

 

Lineage in boxing is a term that has been in flux before. History has had many matches where non-lineal champions became lineal without beating a lineal champion. In such a time, two of the best fighters were matched vs each other, and promoted as a heavyweight championship contest.

Among them were Hart vs Root, Schmeling vs Sharkey, Charles vs Walcott, and Patterson vs Jackson.

If Hart vs Root was not legit, then Bruns lineal claim is shaky.

If Schmeling vs Sharkey was not legit, then Joe Louis never beat the man who beat the man.

If Charles vs Wlacott was not legit, then Rocky Marciano never beat the man who beat the man.

If Patterson vs Jackson was not legit, then Sonny Liston never beat the man who beat the man.

Klitschko is a clear #1. Ibragimov has shown enough to be viewed as a top 5 guy, and like Klitschko also holds a belt. In fact, I think Ibragimov is better than a few underdogs, and in some cases favorites in title unification matches.

It is not for me to decide, but if we study history and honor it, Klitschko vs Ibragimov is the type of match that can create a new lineal champion. Suppose Wald defeats Ibragimov and Peter wins a belt in the ring. One could say Wlad beat the two champions for his belt, and holds a win over the next best champion. IMO, this is enough for a serious debate to crown him as the lineal champion.

 

I am not so sure about Ibragimov being the weakest of the best holders. He holds wins over two past lineal champions, medaled in the Olympics, and is un-defeated as a pro. I would pick Ibragimov over Maskeav. I woudl also take Ibragimov over Chagaev on points, but is close.


If Wlad and Peter both win ( I say more likley than not ) then Wlad holds two belts, has beaten a former Ring Magazine #1 ranked guy in Byrd, and holds a win over a #2 heavy with a belt in Peter. Isn't this enough?

 

Te alphabet version of the belts do not matter as much these days. It is the fighters who hold them that matter.

Fighters like Clazaghe, Pavlik, Dzindziruk, Juan Diaz, and Caldaron are WBO champions. They are also viewed as the #1 guy in their respective divisions.

I do not think we are going to see one man hold four belts for a long time in any of the 17 weight divisions.

If boxing wants to snuff out the lineal championship flame, they are on the right track. There are more vacant lineal titles these days than lineal title holders. It’s true. 9 of the 17 divisions have no lineal champion.

If the standard is a fighter must hold all the best to become a new lineal champion, the term lineal champion will likely become extinct in your lifetime.

A better solution is to crown a new lineal champion when a clear #1 fighter in a division holds two or more belts. This would be equivalent to a clear #1 fighting a ranked contender for the vacant championship in the days when only one belt existed.