BoxRec

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovCHP-KBYyI

Interesting viewing - took me hours please watch - first few mins the footage is very poor

Enjoyed that mate - well done

Thank you it's pretty good isn't it

It was very interesting, thanks. It has to be said that some of the linear champions were somewhat better than others!

Decent watch but to me the concept of lineal is largely a nonsense, particularly when you use it next to words like vacant and retired. Watching that blind (so to speak), for example, you would think that Charles beat Louis for his title. I understand the man beating the man and all the rest of it but it falls apart when people retire or you get ridiculous decisions (Foreman/Briggs for example).

How long did it take you?

I don't think you can really class Wlad Klitschko-Peter I as being for the vacant lineal title. For starters, Vitali has not retired at that point, also it was for no recognised world titles and neither were ranked highly enough.

I'd say Klitschko-Chagaev is the fight that recognised Wlad. No.1 vs No.3 (at the time) with zero chance of 1 vs 2 being made.

orbtastic wrote:Decent watch but to me the concept of lineal is largely a nonsense, particularly when you use it next to words like vacant and retired. Watching that blind (so to speak), for example, you would think that Charles beat Louis for his title. I understand the man beating the man and all the rest of it but it falls apart when people retire or you get ridiculous decisions (Foreman/Briggs for example).

How long did it take you?

Frigging ages

You've got a typo on the Liston-Patterson fight. You've got it down as 1952.

DannyP72 wrote:You've got a typo on the Liston-Patterson fight. You've got it down as 1952.

Vitali vs Peter was never for the lineal title.

As awful as the idea as Vitali/Peter being lineal is, Wladimir/Chagaev was made for the lineal title. Prior to that, The Ring had depressingly made Vitali/Sanders the lineal title.

There hasn't been an undisputed champion since Lewis last boxed - TEN YEARS AGO.

loaded_gloves wrote:Vitali vs Peter was never for the lineal title.

As awful as the idea as Vitali/Peter being lineal is, Wladimir/Chagaev was made for the lineal title. Prior to that, The Ring had depressingly made Vitali/Sanders the lineal title.

There hasn't been an undisputed champion since Lewis last boxed - TEN YEARS AGO.

I think most people would recognise Wlad as being 'the man' though, in the same manner as Lewis was? Which is the whole concept of the lineal championship.

Vitali is a bit more debatable as he never cleaned up the division, however I think you could justify his fight vs Sanders as the replacement to Lewis.

I just don't think there has been a man of enough merit to make a lineal title fight. Being brutally honest here. Ruslan Chagaev? Samuel Peter? A 40 year old Corrie Sanders who never even cracked the top 10 in his own era?

The bar had been brought down to floor level to sanction these men.

loaded_gloves wrote:I just don't think there has been a man of enough merit to make a lineal title fight. Being brutally honest here. Ruslan Chagaev? Samuel Peter? A 40 year old Corrie Sanders who never even cracked the top 10 in his own era?

The bar had been brought down to floor level to sanction these men.

When you say 'a man of enough merit', do you mean the two best men haven't fought each other, or that you don't think anybody in this era is good enough to warrant a championship fight? Because, if the latter, surely the quality is irrelevant if they are the two (or 2 of the 3) best fighters of their time/era?

Using Sanders as an example - yes he might have been old, past his peak, and not very good, but when he fought Vitali he was universally recognised as a genuine contender, certainly in the top 5 at worst (I think The Ring had him at No.3).