Klitschko vs Irbagimov for the lineal title?

[Mendoza]

There is some deabte going on by media power brokers who define what lineal is and isn't.

[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.

[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.

[Asterion]

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.

[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.

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!

[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?

[barneyrub]

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!

[Mendoza]

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.

[ChrisPontius]

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. :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.

[DamonD]

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.

[OLD FOGEY]

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.

[Mendoza]

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.

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.

[mcvey]

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.

[MrMagic]

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

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

[OLD FOGEY]

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 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.

[Mendoza]

It is not a clear-cut issue. Ibragimov is an accomplished guy. He won a medal at the Olympics, hold two wins over past lineal champions, is un-defeated, and in his prime.

I would argue Ibragimov's credentials for this fight are decent even if there are two other champions. Maskeav has been too in-active, and his last opponent was an easy mark. Chagaev was ill, and Skelton in my opinion is not better than Briggs or Holyfield.

Kltischko vs Ibragimov is a rare title unification match that puts two champions in their primes vs each other. Since Wlad is already #1, and Ibragimov is worthy, boxing has a decision to make. Do they want to continue the lineal championship or not? It’s now, or maybe never.

Will it be a clean succession? No, but neither were the other ones.

[OLD FOGEY]

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.

[ChrisPontius]

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.


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.



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.


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



It appears to me that in the 21st century the concept of a linear championship is going to be severely devalued.

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.

[OLD FOGEY]

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.

[Mendoza]

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.

OLD FOGEY,


How can we say for sure if Chagaev is better than Ibragimov? Both are undefeated. I think they would need to meet in the ring to decide that. Chageav had a chance to fight Ibragimov in a title unification match but pulled out and did not reschedule.


Ibragimov has fought better competition as of late. Chagaev has been fighting 2nd raters.


IMO, Ibragimov is playing the part and risking his title vs the #1 guy. He is acting like he want to be #1. Chagaev is taking it easy with his title, and plans to face the wahsed up Krasniqui next after beating a mildly skilled Skelton.

I still say if boxing wants to rekindle its linear flame, this fight is about as good as its going to get. Boxing must choose.

[OLD FOGEY]

OLD FOGEY,


How can we say for sure if Chagaev is better than Ibragimov? Both are undefeated. I think they would need to meet in the ring to decide that. Chageav had a chance to fight Ibragimov in a title unification match but pulled out and did not reschedule.


Ibragimov has fought better competition as of late. Chagaev has been fighting 2nd raters.


IMO, Ibragimov is playing the part and riskign his title vs the #1 guy. Chagaev is taking it easy with his title, and plans to face the wahsed up Krasniqui next after beating a mildly skilled Skelton.

I still say if boxing wants to rekindle its linear flame, this fight is about as good as its going to get. Boxing must choose.

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.

[Mendoza]

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.

Done. Let me know what you think. IMO, it is not my interpretation of linear / lienar it is how history saw it in previous cases.

[janitor]

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.

[OLD FOGEY]

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.

[jc]

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.

[mattdonnellon]

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.

[Mendoza]

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.

We don't know if Ibragimov is a top four right now. Wlad already fought and beat Peter. He also defeated Byrd who was a #1 Ring Magazine guy when they fought, and two other undefeated fighters since. If he beats Ibragimov who is an undefeated champion, I think this is enough.

[OLD FOGEY]

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.

[Sardu]

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.

[janitor]

We don't know if Ibragimov is a top four right now. Wlad already fought and beat Peter. He also defeated Byrd who was a #1 Ring Magazine guy when they fought, and two other undefeated fighters since. If he beats Ibragimov who is an undefeated champion, I think this is enough.

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.

[mattdonnellon]

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.
I think we are in full agreement actually, but some posters are casting doubt on Patterson's right to be considered a linear champion in 1956, my point is you cannot accept a guy as the linear champion and then change your mind. You can feel he is not THE DESERVING CHAMPION BUT HE REMAINS THE LINEAR CHAMPION until he is defeated or retires. Think Briggs or Leon Spinks-a linear title holder can sometimes be a big problem and not the Messiah.

[DamonD]

Well, he did dominate Sultan.
Any more thoughts on this?

[PowerPuncher]

If Vitali was still WBC champ would Mendoza be claiming Wlad was lineal? Ofcourse not. Vitali clearly wasnt lineal but Mendoza claims he was.If this is the case the top3 when Vitali retired were Wlad, Ruiz, Rahman, Byrd, Peter. 2 of those got beat by Chagaev and Maskeev. Vitali may be coming back, then what?

Wlad is clearly the best but currently Maskeev and Chagaev have a claim to being number 1. If Peter beats Maskeev and Chagaev loses to say Ibragimov then Wlad is lineal by default but currently hes not.

[janitor]

Well, he did dominate Sultan.
Any more thoughts on this?

While I am not sold on Wlad's claim to lineage I do think that he is far enough ahead of the rest of the field to render their title claims ridiculous.

It is verry obvious who the best heavyweight in the world is right now.

Unfortunately Wlad has two mandatory title defences coming up so he will not be able to meet another belt holder this year unless he drops one of his titles.

[Marciano Frazier]

This is one of those foggy periods in history, but certainly Wlad's claim to being recognized as the new established linear champion is growing stronger with every fight and is given a big shot in the arm with his unifying two of the sanctioning bodies' belts. If he beats the Maskaev/Peter winner, I believe universal recognition of him as the linear champion will be undeniably merited.

[RoccoMarciano]

I think Lewis needs to come back.

[fists of fury]

Well, he did dominate Sultan.
Any more thoughts on this?

Yes - pathetic.

On one hand we have a paper tiger (Sultan) who had NO clue as to how to close the distance and threw harmless right hands in Wlad's general direction, and another fighter (Wlad) who absolutely will NOT take even the slightest risk, for fear of exposing that china chin.

Technically, Wlad put on a clinic, but sometimes the sport of boxing must overcome the science of boxing. People need to be entertained. I think even Chris Byrd took more risks than Wlad does. :-(

If this is how he fights against a mediocre fighter like Igbragimov, can you imagine how he'd "fight" in some of our hypothetical matchups here? He'd run like a scalded cat any time someone like Foreman or Tyson came near him.

[RoccoMarciano]

Yes - pathetic.

On one hand we have a paper tiger (Sultan) who had NO clue as to how to close the distance and threw harmless right hands in Wlad's general direction, and another fighter (Wlad) who absolutely will NOT take even the slightest risk, for fear of exposing that china chin.

Technically, Wlad put on a clinic, but sometimes the sport of boxing must overcome the science of boxing. People need to be entertained. I think even Chris Byrd took more risks than Wlad does. :-(

If this is how he fights against a mediocre fighter like Igbragimov, can you imagine how he'd "fight" in some of our hypothetical matchups here? He'd run like a scalded cat any time someone like Foreman or Tyson came near him.

So, let me get this straight, Wlad isn't an ATG at this point in time and doesn't belong in this section? Is that what you are saying?

[fists of fury]

So, let me get this straight, Wlad isn't an ATG at this point in time and doesn't belong in this section? Is that what you are saying?

What I'm saying is what I said.

Wlad an ATG? I think he has to do much more than what he has so far.

[RoccoMarciano]

I think he has to do much more than what he has so far.

I tend to agree.

[Mendoza]

If Vitali was still WBC champ would Mendoza be claiming Wlad was lineal? Ofcourse not. Vitali clearly wasnt lineal but Mendoza claims he was.If this is the case the top3 when Vitali retired were Wlad, Ruiz, Rahman, Byrd, Peter. 2 of those got beat by Chagaev and Maskeev. Vitali may be coming back, then what?

Wlad is clearly the best but currently Maskeev and Chagaev have a claim to being number 1. If Peter beats Maskeev and Chagaev loses to say Ibragimov then Wlad is lineal by default but currently hes not.

You said IF, Vitlai was still WBC champ. Vitali is not still WBC champ. He has not fought in years. Hence, the lineal title is vacant.

Vitlai was Ring Magazine champion, and some also saw him as lineal champion when he was active. That was 2004. This is 2008. Wlad has won a title unification match, and has beaten many contenders. If Peter beats Maskeav, Wlad will have a win over one of the other champions.

IMO, Wlad should be lineal / linear by using history of other fighters who became lineal without beating the former linear champion.

[Mendoza]

What I'm saying is what I said.

Wlad an ATG? I think he has to do much more than what he has so far.

More such as what? The context of what an all time great is not a set definition. The best way to do it is to comapre and contrast to the field.

Here is an older article I wrote a while back, before Wlad unifiyed a belt. Comment on this after reading it.

Who are the top all time 30 heavyweights? You can pick
your own. I'll list 30. Odds are we have matches on at
least 20 names, and likely 25 names. I'm not here to
debate any order, moreover just agree to a general
consensus on the names.

M. Ali,L. Holmes,J. Jeffries,J. Louis,S. Liston,G.
Foreman,L Lewis,J. Dempsey,R. Marciano,R. Bowe,E.
Holyfield,M. Tyson,J. Frazier,J. Johnson,V.
Klitschko,G. Tunney,K. Norton,S. Langford,B.
Fitzsimmons,J. Corbett,P. Jackson,H Wills,E. Charles,J
Walcott, F. Patterson,M Schmeling,J.L. Sullivan,T.
Witherspoon, and I.Ibeabuchi

Now that we have the names out of the way, I'll get to
my point. Is Wladimir Klitschko on his way to getting
on this list? Let's examine.

Current Winning percentage: 94.23%. 6th best of the
listed 30 fighters. Only Marciano, Tunney, Louis,
Ibeabuchi, and Bowe have higher winning percentages.

KO Percentage:84.61% 3rd best of the listed 30
fighters. Only Marciano and Vitlay Kltishcko are
higher. It is possible for Wlad to pass them both.

Heavyweight title bout record ( Alphabets included )
9-2. At the top of the list in terms of total wins and
percentage of wins. Some may roll their eyes at
counting alphabet title defenses. Coutner point. Is a
guy like Brock any worse than say half of Louis,
Ali's, Frazier, or Holmes title opponents? I think
not!

Amount of times KO'd. 3 times. Only 13 of the 30
fighters have been Ko'd less. Many traditionally
higher rated fighters were Ko'd more often, and in my
opinion by lesser punchers.

Size: Few were bigger

Hand Speed: Few had faster hands

Skills: Few had a better skills on offense or defense.

Power: Few hit harder.

Less bums: Wlad fought very few fighters with losing
records

All over 200 pounds: Wlad has always fought
heavyweights.

No color or geographical line: Wlad has never used the
color line and has fought the best fighters from all
over the world.

Is Wlad on his way to making a top 30 all time list? I
think so!

The Brewster win puts Wlad in the top 20 for now. Wlad
is in his prime. A time when physical skills,
experience, and confidence are all at high levels. I
can't see more popular fighters like Charels, Walcott,
Patterson, or Schemling getting the better of Wlad in
a 3 fight series.

[barneyrub]

More such as what? The context of what an all time great is not a set definition. The best way to do it is to comapre and contrast to the field.

Here is an older article I wrote a while back, before Wlad unifiyed a belt. Comment on this after reading it.

Who are the top all time 30 heavyweights? You can pick
your own. I'll list 30. Odds are we have matches on at
least 20 names, and likely 25 names. I'm not here to
debate any order, moreover just agree to a general
consensus on the names.

M. Ali,L. Holmes,J. Jeffries,J. Louis,S. Liston,G.
Foreman,L Lewis,J. Dempsey,R. Marciano,R. Bowe,E.
Holyfield,M. Tyson,J. Frazier,J. Johnson,V.
Klitschko,G. Tunney,K. Norton,S. Langford,B.
Fitzsimmons,J. Corbett,P. Jackson,H Wills,E. Charles,J
Walcott, F. Patterson,M Schmeling,J.L. Sullivan,T.
Witherspoon, and I.Ibeabuchi

Now that we have the names out of the way, I'll get to
my point. Is Wladimir Klitschko on his way to getting
on this list? Let's examine.

Current Winning percentage: 94.23%. 6th best of the
listed 30 fighters. Only Marciano, Tunney, Louis,
Ibeabuchi, and Bowe have higher winning percentages.

KO Percentage:84.61% 3rd best of the listed 30
fighters. Only Marciano and Vitlay Kltishcko are
higher. It is possible for Wlad to pass them both.

Heavyweight title bout record ( Alphabets included )
9-2. At the top of the list in terms of total wins and
percentage of wins. Some may roll their eyes at
counting alphabet title defenses. Coutner point. Is a
guy like Brock any worse than say half of Louis,
Ali's, Frazier, or Holmes title opponents? I think
not!

Amount of times KO'd. 3 times. Only 13 of the 30
fighters have been Ko'd less. Many traditionally
higher rated fighters were Ko'd more often, and in my
opinion by lesser punchers.

Size: Few were bigger

Hand Speed: Few had faster hands

Skills: Few had a better skills on offense or defense.

Power: Few hit harder.

Less bums: Wlad fought very few fighters with losing
records

All over 200 pounds: Wlad has always fought
heavyweights.

No color or geographical line: Wlad has never used the
color line and has fought the best fighters from all
over the world.

Is Wlad on his way to making a top 30 all time list? I
think so!

The Brewster win puts Wlad in the top 20 for now. Wlad
is in his prime. A time when physical skills,
experience, and confidence are all at high levels. I
can't see more popular fighters like Charels, Walcott,
Patterson, or Schemling getting the better of Wlad in
a 3 fight series.How can he be at the top of the list for title fight wins with a 9-2 alphabet record?

Id agree with you though that he is verging on the top 30 but i dont think the win over Brewster did anything at all to boost him up the ratings and neither did saturdays fight.

[barneyrub]

You said IF, Vitlai was still WBC champ. Vitali is not still WBC champ. He has not fought in years. Hence, the lineal title is vacant.

Vitlai was Ring Magazine champion, and some also saw him as lineal champion when he was active. That was 2004. This is 2008. Wlad has won a title unification match, and has beaten many contenders. If Peter beats Maskeav, Wlad will have a win over one of the other champions.

IMO, Wlad should be lineal / linear by using history of other fighters who became lineal without beating the former linear champion.Vitali`s title lineage went to Rahman then Maskaev, the winner of the fight with Peter will have a solid claim and by fighting the returning vitali the winner will cement their lineal status and have a higher claim than Wlad despite his alphabet collection.

[fists of fury]

Mendoza - it's all fine and well listing statistics, but if used in the right way, stats can prove just about anything.
You say Wlad has only been KO'd 3 times. Fair enough, but 3 times by competent but hardly oustanding fighters.

One aspect of 'greatness' that I place a lot of emphasis on is what that fighter meant to his era. Does Wlad define his era the way Ali, Louis, Dempsey, Marciano...heck, even Tyson did? I'd say no.

What I'm getting at is this: Wlad has got some great assets, no-one can deny that. But his era is weak - one of the weakest it must be said - and to be remembered as anything other than a highly competent fighter in 40 years he's going to have to do what Louis did, and that's completely dominate it.
So far he's doing that, but he's got a way to go yet.

H2H? I'd bet on him more often than not. But in 30 years, who knows? It's one reason I'm not enthusiastic about H2H. The moderns have all (or most of) the advantages.

[Mendoza]

Mendoza - it's all fine and well listing statistics, but if used in the right way, stats can prove just about anything.
You say Wlad has only been KO'd 3 times. Fair enough, but 3 times by competent but hardly oustanding fighters.

One aspect of 'greatness' that I place a lot of emphasis on is what that fighter meant to his era. Does Wlad define his era the way Ali, Louis, Dempsey, Marciano...heck, even Tyson did? I'd say no.

What I'm getting at is this: Wlad has got some great assets, no-one can deny that. But his era is weak - one of the weakest it must be said - and to be remembered as anything other than a highly competent fighter in 40 years he's going to have to do what Louis did, and that's completely dominate it. So far he's doing that, but he's got a way to go yet.

H2H? I'd bet on him more often than not. But in 30 years, who knows? It's one reason I'm not enthusiastic about H2H. The moderns have all (or most of) the advantages.

Fists of Fury,

When stats are lined up wide and deep, they pretty much can prove a point. This is not one or two stats, but many vs the best fighters in history! This is a baseball way of looking at it. Using stats for different people in different eras without saying who would win head to head.

I disagree regarding hitters. Sanders and Brewster are big hitters.Compare and contrast their KO %, amount of early Ko's, and filmed KO's and they hold up well vs the best hitters in history.

I don't think this is the weakest decade in heavyweight boxing. Not a chance. The 30's, and 40's were. The 2nd half of the 1910's was dull until Dmepsey, and the 2nd half of the 1920's was also dull because Demspey was in-active. IMO, the 60's, 70's and 90's were likely the best.

The good point you made was what does Wlad mean to this era? In the Western world he's seen as the #1 heavyweight man for many years. However, boxing is a global sport. In Europe Wlad is very popular. So perhaps Wlad's global fan base dwarfs Jack Johsnon, Jack Demspey, and Sonny Liston's. See what I mean........

[Mendoza]

How can he be at the top of the list for title fight wins with a 9-2 alphabet record?

Id agree with you though that he is verging on the top 30 but i dont think the win over Brewster did anything at all to boost him up the ratings and neither did saturdays fight.

It's now 11-2 ( Article was written before Austin and Ibragimov fights ) in title fights, which is amazing in any era. How many heavyweight fighters won more than 11 title matches? Not too many.

IMO, Wlad is clearly in the top 30 if he retired today. One could argue top 20 today, and possibly top 15 or better if he keeps winning title matches.

One thing I want to point out is Wlad really has not made his name on past their prime comepetion in general, but some other champs most singificant wins were vs past their prime names. All fighters face older guys, but Klitschko on average seems to face less.

[barneyrub]

It's now 11-2 ( Article was written before Austin and Ibragimov fights ) in title fights, which is amazing in any era. How many heavyweight fighters won more than 11 title matches? Not too many.

IMO, Wlad is clearly in the top 30 if he retired today. One could argue top 20 today, and possibly top 15 or better if he keeps winning title matches.

One thing I want to point out is Wlad really has not made his name on past their prime comepetion in general, but some other champs most singificant wins were vs past their prime names. All fighters face older guys, but Klitschko on average seems to face less.No way has he won 11 world title fights, since when did WBO count?

If Hide had won the WBO title one more time would we really mention him along with Ali, Holyfield and Lewis as 3 time champions?

[Mendoza]

No way has he won 11 world title fights, since when did WBO count?

If Hide had won the WBO title one more time would we really mention him along with Ali, Holyfield and Lewis as 3 time champions?

The WBO has been around long enough to have the #1 gun as champion. WBO can mean Joe Calzaghe, Kelly Pavlik, Sergi Diziziruk, Wlad Klitschko or Juan Diaz. These are #1 guns in their respetive divisons ( for argument sake ) in 2008. So you see the fighter defines the belt more so than the belt defining the fighter.

Some lineal heavyweight champions such as Riddick Bowe, and Michael Morrer were WBO champs. Ring Magazine champ Vitlai Klitschko was a WBO champ.

Ali and Holyfield had a lot of chances to win titles after they lost. If Hide took out Bowe or Moorer to win the WBO title again, yes, I think he's a 3 time champ with more distinction.

What matters now is Wlad has two of the four major belts.

[PowerPuncher]

The WBO has been around long enough to have the #1 gun as champion. WBO can mean Joe Calzaghe, Kelly Pavlik, Sergi Diziziruk, Wlad Klitschko or Juan Diaz. These are #1 guns in their respetive divisons ( for argument sake ) in 2008. So you see the fighter defines the belt more so than the belt defining the fighter.

Some lineal heavyweight champions such as Riddick Bowe, and Michael Morrer were WBO champs. Ring Magazine champ Vitlai Klitschko was a WBO champ.

Ali and Holyfield had a lot of chances to win titles after they lost. If Hide took out Bowe or Moorer to win the WBO title again, yes, I think he's a 3 time champ with more distinction.

What matters now is Wlad has two of the four major belts.

Wlad hasn't once defended the lineal title that much is the fact. I could make the case 'Wlad has never been undisputed & Lineal Champion' and he has not. So 11-2 in title fights is REALLY 0-0 in Undisputed/Lineal title fights.

Wlad is certainly cracking my top30 but don't create propoganda about him because we'll see right through it

Herbie Hide never beat a top10 rated HW, actually I don't think he beat a top30 rated HW, yet you call him a 2 time HW time and I was a Hide fan in my younger years but he simply never amounted to much.

BTW your wrong Michael Moorer has never been WBO HW Champ, he held the WBO belt at 175. Bowe had the WBO after he was champ. Vitali had the WBO belt years before becoming. Many top fighters have held the NABA title, that doesnt make NABA a top title either

[Mendoza]

Wlad hasn't once defended the lineal title that much is the fact. I could make the case 'Wlad has never been undisputed & Lineal Champion' and he has not. So 11-2 in title fights is REALLY 0-0 in Undisputed/Lineal title fights.

Wlad is certainly cracking my top30 but don't create propoganda about him because we'll see right through it

Herbie Hide never beat a top10 rated HW, actually I don't think he beat a top30 rated HW, yet you call him a 2 time HW time and I was a Hide fan in my younger years but he simply never amounted to much.

BTW your wrong Michael Moorer has never been WBO HW Champ, he held the WBO belt at 175. Bowe had the WBO after he was champ
Let's focus on the facts, shall we.

Working backwards, Yes Michael Moorer was the WBO champ. He won the vacant title by beating Bert Cooper in 1991 after Mercer gave it up to fight Larry Holmes.

Hide was a top ten ring magazine ranked fighter, with wins over X-alphabet champs in Tucker and Bentt. Tucker was ring rated guy in the 1990’s.

I think if you objectively look at the WBO champs today, you’ll it is the man, not the belt that defines the fighter. Some of the #1 guns in their weight class are WBO champions.

Defending a lineal title does not make the opponent any better or worse. I see very little difference in terms of quality of opponents since the alphabets came into play. As I said before Frazier, Ali, Holmes, Holfyield, Bowe, and Lewis had their share of soft touches as lienar / lineal champion too. Therefore, I prefer to look at it as a record in title fights. Wlad is 11-2 in his title fights. This is good in ANY era.

As for the see right through you comment, coming from a confirmed Klitschko hater you are obviously not an un-biased poster.

This thread is should Wlad be linear/lienal or not after the Ibragimov fight. I think based on history, yes he should be.

[Sonny's jab]

WBO heavyweight title was an utter joke when Lennox Lewis was champion, and any time before.

Calling Wlad a champion back in 2000 is as bad as giving Damiani champion status in 1989.

None of the linear champions have held the WBO while being recognized as the real champ. The WBO heavyweight title was a minor meaningless title at best, and a handicap at worse.
It's not until 2004-05 that the WBO heavyweight title gained credibility, and that was because fans figured that Lamon Brewster was probably no worse - and possibly better - than Byrd and Ruiz, or whoever held the IBF and WBA titles.

[PowerPuncher]

As for the see right through you comment, coming from a confirmed Klitschko hater you are obviously not an un-biased poster.
.

Pay attention I've rated Wlad in my top30 HWs, hardly the behaviour of someone hating on the man. I am also a much bigger fan of Wlad than Vitali however I'm not a Klithugger like yourself. I actually wrote this on another forum about Wlad:

I think Wlad is very good for the sport iand I hope he dominates for the next few years. He represents a dominant HW Champ, with good skills, that is in great physical shape and actually is athletic. I think Wlad has overcome some of his shotrtcomings that saw him collapse/get ko'd earlier in his career. None of the other contenders bring the same top level package to the table. Most contenders are overweight, short on skills, and cant punch or all of these. Wlad is the Larry Holmes esque saviour of this era.

Chageev doesn't bring the physical package to beat Wlad imo. He has a good punch but not top level power like Peter, Maskeev, Sanders, Brewster. His workrate and speed are okay but nothing to worry Wlad.

I really can't see anyone beating Wladdy for the forseeable future. People tout Povetkin as some second coming but hes not upto scratch and struggled last time out.

I think the best prospect to dethrone Wlad is David Haye if he can transition to HW, which I think he will as a solid ripped 220lber. I dont think anyone else is good enough but maybe theres a prospect or 2 who has slipped under my radar.

[PowerPuncher]

make the opponent any better or worse. I see very little difference in terms of quality of opponents since the alphabets came into play. As I said before Frazier, Ali, Holmes, Holfyield, Bowe, and Lewis had their share of soft touches as lienar / lineal champion too. Therefore, I prefer to look at it as a record in title fights. Wlad is 11-2 in his title fights. This is good in ANY era.
.

The quality of competition is irrelevant. WLAD HAS HAD ZERO LINEAL/UNDISPUTED HW TITLE FIGHTS. He is not a true HW Champ in the manner Frazier, Ali, Holmes, Holyfield, Bowe, and Lewis were so YOU CANT COMPARE ABC FIGHTS TO UNDISPUTED BOUTS. WLAD HASNT HAD ANY YET.

Liston/Jack Johnson had great pre-HW CHampionship wins, but your agenda doesn't count those as title fights so why do you bend the rules for Wlad?

Do you count Jack Johnson as a world champion when he had his Coloured World Title? Shouldn't Jack Johnson's Coloured World Title rate above the IBF/WBO belts because you had to beat the best black fighters in the world to win it which may have been harder than winning the then white world title?

[Mendoza]

Pay attention I've rated Wlad in my top30 HWs, hardly the behaviour of someone hating on the man. I am also a much bigger fan of Wlad than Vitali however I'm not a Klithugger like yourself. I actually wrote this on another forum about Wlad:

I think Wlad is very good for the sport iand I hope he dominates for the next few years. He represents a dominant HW Champ, with good skills, that is in great physical shape and actually is athletic. I think Wlad has overcome some of his shotrtcomings that saw him collapse/get ko'd earlier in his career. None of the other contenders bring the same top level package to the table. Most contenders are overweight, short on skills, and cant punch or all of these. Wlad is the Larry Holmes esque saviour of this era.

Chageev doesn't bring the physical package to beat Wlad imo. He has a good punch but not top level power like Peter, Maskeev, Sanders, Brewster. His workrate and speed are okay but nothing to worry Wlad.

I really can't see anyone beating Wladdy for the forseeable future. People tout Povetkin as some second coming but hes not upto scratch and struggled last time out.

I think the best prospect to dethrone Wlad is David Haye if he can transition to HW, which I think he will as a solid ripped 220lber. I dont think anyone else is good enough but maybe theres a prospect or 2 who has slipped under my radar.

David Haye the best prospect to dethrone Wlad? Haye has zero fights at heavyweight. This is a pipe dream, and the " next hope " of the anti kltischko fans who picked Peter and Brewster in the rematch. By the way who did you pick between Wlad vs Peter and Wlad vs Brewster II?

How many heavyweight unifcation matches did Holfyield or Bowe win? More or less than Wlad? More games here. Please tell me what the difference is in wining a lienal / linear title vs an ABC title if the opponet is the same.

Hopkins was creidted with 20 title defenses at middle weight. Are you saying because he wasn't unified or lineal, those should not count?

[PowerPuncher]

David Haye the best prospect to dethrone Wlad? Haye has zero fights at heavyweight. This is a pipe dream, and the " next hope " of the anti kltischko fans who picked Peter and Brewster in the rematch. By the way who did you pick between Wlad vs Peter and Wlad vs Brewster II?

How many heavyweight unifcation matches did Holfyield or Bowe win? More or less than Wlad? More games here. Please tell me what the difference is in wining a lienal / linear title vs an ABC title if the opponet is the same.

Hopkins was creidted with 20 title defenses at middle weight. Are you saying because he wasn't unified or lineal, those should not count?

No Hopkins shouldnt have 20 title defenses, Hopkins reign at MW isnt that impressive. Bowe/Holyfield did not need to unify because they beat the Linear champion to become the man and had all 3 belts obviously made unifying an impossibilty. But Holyfield did unify with Micheal Moorer

Winning an ABC belt is 1/4 of the HW Championship and at times when the linear champ holds another belt is not even 1/4. So when Lennox Lewis was champion was Wlad also HW Champion. He was obviously not so Wlads WBO fights are not championship fights. Fighting the best fighters makes a legacy whether champion or not. But if thats the case why are you listing title fights??? Contradicting yourself Z

Haye has 1 fight at HW, once Holyfield had zero fights at HW. Haye is actually a fighter in similar mold to Wlad/Lewis. I'm not 100% sold on Haye yet, on the inside he has problems (like Wlad), he has some chin worries, but has great technique, power and speed

I picked:

Wlad-Brewster - Wlad - Brew had been out for a long time, was badly injured last time and was all but beaten in the first fight

Wlad-Peter - Wlad - Peter was unproven and technically poor, but I saw this as a bit of 50-50 because of Wlads chin/stamina and I was proven right with Wlads 3 KDs

I don't think I've ever picked against Wlad if memory serves me correct. But Haye may catch an aging Wlad although I wouldnt make Haye a favourate if they fought now BUT he'd make a better fight of it than Ibragimov thats for sure

[PowerPuncher]

Again I'll ask Z/Mendoza:

WHY DO YOU COUNT WLADs WBO TITLE FIGHTS AS WORLD TITLE FIGHTS BUT NOT COUNT JACK JOHNSONS COLOURED HW TITLE FIGHTS AS WORLD TITLE FIGHTS? PURE AGENDA

[Mendoza]

Again I'll ask Z/Mendoza:

WHY DO YOU COUNT WLADs WBO TITLE FIGHTS AS WORLD TITLE FIGHTS BUT NOT COUNT JACK JOHNSONS COLOURED HW TITLE FIGHTS AS WORLD TITLE FIGHTS? PURE AGENDA

You are going to step into a pile here.

1 ) Many of the colored title fights were sparring type of sessions with NC, 3, or 6 round decisions. Were these sanctioned fights, or sparring matches? Do tell.

2 ) Another question is this. If Jack Johnson won the " colored title " from Klondike Haines in 1900, does that mean Choysnki took the linear claim when he Ko'd Johnson in 3 rounds in 1901 a year later? Please respond.

3 ) If not Choynski, then perhaps Griffin in 1901 who defeated Johnson as colored champion, Griffin was black. IMO this was a colored championship between the two best balck heavies of the time line, and a full 20 rounds! It seems to me that Johnson vs Griffin for the colored championship was skirted to create the illuison of a colored title reign for Johnson. Do you agree or diagree?

4 ) If not that, then was Hart the colored champ in 1905 when he beat Johnson, who was still the colored champ in 1905 depsite losing a DQ match eariler to Jeanette?! I'm sorry but if you lose a match by DQ, one can not retian the title!

See the problem here? Its very sticky. One cannot call it a true title if the title is not on the when the champion in is the ring, and the matches themselves in some cases are much shorter than the normal title matches of the time. If you want the truth, the WBO behaves and acts better than the losely held rules of the colored title.

My positon is this. I tend to view the colored championship as an accomplishment / honor for the times and simply leave it at that.

PS: After you reply direclty to my four points ( good luck ), let's foucus on the title of the thread. Or you can start a seperate thread on this topic.

[DamonD]

BTW your wrong Michael Moorer has never been WBO HW Champ
I think he did hold it actually, back in 1992...the Moorer vs Cooper fight was for the WBO belt, after Ray Mercer had been stripped of it for wanting to fight Larry Holmes instead of whoever the WBO wanted him to fight.

Of course, Moorer ditched it pretty damn soon himself as well!

I remember when Bowe had the WBO belt, HBO refused point-blank to recognise it or even mention that it was the WBO belt. They didn't give Akinwande much lip-service for it when he had it in '96 either, and certainly scoffed and derided Herbie Hide's 1997-99 reign.

Now HBO isn't everyone, but Showtime was pretty much following suit when it came to the WBO belt as well.

I don't think it was actually until Wlad got his mitts on it in 2000 that it started getting more credit and profile on US television. And that was due to Wlad holding it rather than the belt itself, because Wlad was seen as the 'champ in waiting'.

From around that point on, the WBO has had better recognition.
In the 90s, very little.

Put it this way - if in 10 years time the IBO belt has suddenly built itself a bit of a reputation (God forbid we get another belt in the mix)...can we have Lionel Butler, Jimmy Thunder and Brian Nielsen regarded as legitimate heavyweight champions or is it a case of realising that it just didn't mean much at that time...?

[BOGART]

Unfortunatly the WBO title has picked up more of a reputation over the last few years. This only serves to confuse the issue more. In today's division the WBO carries the same weight as the other three belts. So with Wlad having picked up two of those belts and having been considered the best in the division for a couple years now I have no problem considering him the lineal champion. The new lineage should start with Wlad.

To be honest, in today's heavyweight picture, holding two titles is a big deal. Its not like its just any heavyweight holding two belts ether, it happens to be the divisions best fighter. Waiting around for someone to grab three or four of the belts is crazy. It's just not going to happen. Having the best guy in the division holding two of the titles is about the best we are going to get.

Lets also not forget that there are no set rules on what restarts a title lineage. Lineages have been restarted with fewer hoops to jump through than what today's heavies have to jump through. So in today's age, with the current circumstances, I would consider Wlad to be the new heavyweight champion.