Has wlad done enough such that he's began a new universally accepted lineage?

:rofl...You.know.me.so.well.

That.said,my.REAL.lineage.of.people's.heavyweight.champions.looks.like.this:

This content is protected

 

i can understand why the brothers do not want to fight eachother. but for me to be the lineal champ he has to beat his brother

 

By no means every new lineage has been established by the #1 fighting the #2. It would set a new prescedent if Wlad were to be recognsed based on his acomplishments to date.

 

He retired. That means he vacated the throne. To assume that a champion remains a champion even though they voluntarily vacated the throne would freeze titles longer than WW II.

This is a giant issue with The Ring's lineage. By their practice, had Monzon come out of retirement in 1983, Hagler would have had to beat him to gain their historical recognition.

Vitali retired. Then came back and in no time was ranked right behind his brother. At no time did either Klitschko fight the next guy down, so the throne is vacant. (I accept The Ring's rankings for most of it's history since 1928 but not their exceptions allowing #1 to fight #3s, nor their appointments). The recognized champion should be required to face the best out there -not the second best. Until the brothers duke it out, the throne is vacant. It's so simple.

---Because mama Klitschko doesn't want her boys to fight. Thus, mama Klitschko holds the throne hostage. And The Ring honors this nonsense? I ask you: have you ever met brother who DIDN'T FIGHT? Have you ever met brothers who don't fight just because mommy tells them not to? Have we gone maudlin?

They need to fight to figure it out.

When Wlad retires, his successor will be determined the moment the top two contenders fight. Succession by combat -that's what it is called as far I'm concerned.

Of course! Brothers have been competing and fighting since the first generation! Cain and Abel! I was just at my brother's house and guess what! We fought! Right in front of his damn wife!

Let's not sissify boxing!

 

Early on in the Marquess of Queensberry era, champions were often declared by universal or near-universal acclaim after a defining bout against a top rival claimant or a champion of Great Britain or America.

Official tournaments set up by the NBA were not uncommon during the golden era.

Today, with these jerk-off alphabet bodies, we should insist that the top two contenders fight it out for the championship. That means using an objective ranking system (not Jose Silly-Man's whimsical list or those others which are generated by graft and cronyism) and we should ignore those jerk-off belts as much as possible.

 

I don't think you want to confuse concepts here, man. The champ is the champ and not necessarily or always the best in the division. He's got to be toppled to be overcome unless he vacates -or abandons- the throne.

The premiere fighter is the best fighter in the division and may not necessarily be the champ. I see a whole lot of issues with toppling champs by fiat because you think that someone was "better."

CBZ has oversights and mistakes. Case in point -where's Simon Brown on the Jr. Middle lineage?

See, I think vacant thrones can work to the benefit of boxing! Once we get it right ignore the ABCs, then an empty throne can only be taken if the top two guys duke it out. Otherwise, all claims are phony. We have to insist that the champion deserves to be champion and remains ONE.

That would cause only more confusion because if we cannot recognize one champion in the division and instead make every man his own WBS, what would we get that is better than today? Let's debate who the best is, but let's not debate competing ideas of who the champ is!

See what I'm saying?

 

If you wanna be a hardass and say no, whatever, I can understand but disagree. But saying the brothers "share" the lineage? It makes no sense. They share nothing. It's Wlad or no one. Period.

 

What's the matter with Jofre at BW?

Offical tournaments are great -but they have to involve the actual top guys not the WBS's self-interest.

The issue of bad decisions can be relegated to past decisions. It's a mistake to go messing around with the historical record 50 years after a bad decision. However, we can control for future bad decisions.

Again, the "best out there" is not necessarily the champ. What sense does it make to call Lanford the true champion in three divisions when he was ducked and never became champion? He was the uncrowned champion for a time, but to decide 100 years later that he was actually "on the throne" because he was the best and should have been on the throne is fantasy. There are many examples of that. You really can't call "Cocoa Kid" the champion at any point, because he simply wasn't.

Additionally, you open up a pandora's box about who in fact was the best out there at any given time. We'd get locked into a debating loop forever.

As to those who think the ones who hold belts are the world champs - frankly, they just don't know any better. We need to school 'em.

 

Voted "both" but I meant Vitali, if anyone..

 

I go with Wlad on the basis that he has made an effort to unify the titles. Although he obviously falls short of that on account that he won't fight his brother...

I think more stock should be given to guys trying to unify the major belts, as it is a statement of intent. After all, if a guy beats two/three other champions and goes after the remainder they solve a few of our problems. It's the guys who grab a belt and then have no intention of fighting the other champions that make the situation difficult. Like the current MW division. 4 champs all looking to defend their titles, rather than unify.