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

Tim was having promotional issues. Boxing is, first and foremost, a business.

That said, who's ducking who right now? Tim's available while Khan wants to fight Tim's leftovers. Is GBP taking a page from Arum/Pacquiao's playbook?

The only name of significance on that list is Maidana and we all know what happened there. Tim's resume @ 140 is better. Oh, and lets not forget about the Prescott debalce. Yeah, I know it happened # LW - however, it must be noted that I'm hard pressed to find the logic in rating a guy who got KTFO'ed in the *1st* round by a EUROBUM over a long reiging undefeated champion who's taken on ALL comers in one of the deepest divisions in boxing.

I just don't get it...

Tim handed Alexander his *first* and only loss - and made him quit in the process. What has Khan done @ 140 other than get sonned by Marcos Maidana?

PS - if you're going to play the Alexander lost to Kotelnyk and Matthysse game then you had better start getting used to the idea that Khan lost to Maidada.

Even if Khan had beaten Maidana convincingly, which he didn't, Bradley would still have a better resume.

 

The one thing that hurts Wlad's legacy is not avanging the defeat to Sanders..and having his big brother do it for him instead.

 

I'm sorry but you can't have it both ways. Kotelnyk "exposed" Alexander as much as Maidana "exposed" Khan.

If you're going to penalize Alexander for getting "exposed" then you're going to have to do the same thing to Khan.

As soon as you bring some consistency to your logic, Tim will be @ #1.

So, how about it?

 

As long as it's you that hurts his feelings.

You lost me here.

 

Vitali had the Ring's championship and he vacated it. The next person to hold the Ring's title was Wlad who still holds it. No one can argue that. The Ring is the last fair and decent organization. Wlad is the legitimate,linear champion.
Whoever holds the Ring belt is the champion 99% of the time unless the Ring and linear titles get separated,that is very rare.

 

You were supposed to answer "unify the belts" and then I would come back with some witty quip like "F--- THE F---ING BELTS!

I have something like 60 boxing essays published. You won't see any mention of those organizations. If I slipped up early on, I'm going to edit it. I no longer believe that any attention or acknowledgment of those belts are warranted or even good for boxing. If we excised the following language from the lingo:

- All references to the various WBS sanctioning bodies
- "WBS champion"
- "title-holder"
- "belt-holder"
- "undisputed"
- "unified, unification"

--We'd eventually suck their power out of them. All they have is media attention and public acknowledgement. And we allow them to confuse and hobble boxing. Why? There is no need for it. The networks insisted on it in the 70s and HBO is starting to slip up again but that is only because the suits behind their desks look out their high windows and think that we want to be duped into thinking that we are watching a real title fight.

The shame is that too many DO! Forums like ESB should start making it known. "Occupy The Ring" haha.

 

I never knew Nigel's real name was Moses. Listen man, The Ring gets it wrong sometimes and have been known to break their own rules.

 

:huh Hmm. As I understand it, Volo wanted that fight, but Sanders wanted to go after Vitali's claim, and Vitali simply obliged. All I can say is this: Volo avenged his loss to Brewster and rematched the only guy to really trouble him in a victory since that loss, in Peter. Dominating and stopping both. :conf Make of that whatever, I guess, all things considered. We can, all of us, find plenty of fault with the quality of his opposition, at the highest level, for him. But, I can personally find zero fault in him for fights that weren't made, but should have been.

 

I had a feeling it was about the belts.

I understand this sentiment, however belts were designed to prove who the champion or "man" is. Now I know there's far too many of them making bogus title fights a horrible occurrence and recurrence. However, what's the alternative for a man to claim supremacy other than having all the belts? Yes, conventionally beating the 2nd best guy, and then everyone after that does the job but who's the next best guy. Yeah, there are cases when it's not the guy who happens to hold the belt in the Don King circle musical chairs sweepstakes. However, cleaning all the junk is the best way to be recognized as the best or the man. I know this unfortunately reinforces some meaning toward belts which is the entire problem. It's almost like making a documentary about the critical nature of the media. That documentary, in and of it self is part of the media and thus perpetuates whatever the criticism is. Maybe not the best analogy. Is the best alternative to you having The Ring decide, or just letting the fighters beat the next best perceived guy and thus being recognized as the champ regardless of belts and what belt-holders say?

Do you consider Larry Holmes to have been the "man" regardless of belts and unification?

Was Tyson's unification not more empowering to his recognition and undisputed supreme status as champ?

I actually don't mind the term "belt-holder" as much. At least it distinguishes the real champs from guys who just carry straps.

 

Linear (or lineal) champ usually means the man who beat the man...


And since Rocky retired undefeated, the line ended there.

But if we consider Floyd Patterson as the champ after that (and few would dispute that), then the linear championship flowed through Liston, Clay/Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Ali, Spinks, Ali, It had another break at that point.

A small case could be made for Holmes as he beat (A greatly diminished ) Ali. Weak case, but for the sake of linearity, Holmes beat the last linear champ in 1980.

It then flows through Holmes, Spinks, Tyson, Douglas, Holyfield, Bowe, Holyfield, Moorer, Foreman, Briggs, Lewis, Rahman, Lewis.

When Lewis retired, there was another break.

And since Lewis stayed retired, there is no current linear champion at HW.

Vitali, as WBC sanctioned successor to Lewis (by defeating Sanders) has a case as being the "restart' linear champion.

And as he has remained undefeated since, he has as good a claim as any to title of linear champion.

He was not in the same boat as Patterson after Marciano, given the profliferation of belts since that time, but he has as more claim under 'the man-who-beat-the-man' logic, than anyone else.


To truly restart the linear titles, someone would need to hold at least the WBA and WBC titles.

And to be undisputed champion, one would need all four belts.



As of now, I regard the distinction of linear champion as being unclaimed.

As with the (weak) case above for Vitali, a similar case could be made for Wlad.

And as with the distinction of being 'the man' at HW, for the same reasons, that too is vacant.

However, in both cases, it would be difficult to argue that someone other than the brothers was either the 'linear champ' or 'the man' at HW.

Therefore, I see them as sharing both distinctions at the moment.

And their situation is sufficiently unique in HW history that they should not necessarily be expected to face each other.


If one or other were to retire at some future point, without suffering a loss till that point, and the other had remained undefeated from now till then, then the remaining brother would hold both distinctions.

This is what I believe will happen, and I expect the eventual holder of these distinctions to be Wlad.

 

:rofl

Yeah...Lufcrazy was hitting the bong on that one. Only comment he's made that wasn't well thought out.

Nay_Sayer..normally logical? bahahaha