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

A shame but I can imagine if the internet was around in 1980 the thread would be the same if we swapped "holmes" with "wlad"

There will be those still today who maintain that once ali retired, there was no true champ until tyson so holmes legacy itself could be less than certain if such stock is placed upon such things.

The reality is the title of "lineal" champ is based upon mythical criteria that is different across the board which is why we place emphasis on the acceptance of one man in the boxing universe.

Lewis's claim wasn't certain until he beat holyfield in 99.

Things like this are going to be debated throughout history because the sport is subjective.

However in 30 years time people will be looking on the internet at some lineal trace and i'm fairly certain it will go back to wlad. Only time can tell though.

As it stands, the best global ranking body is the ring so I think the majority of the boxing public and media will go along with their position having wlad as champ.

 

I agree but there are those who don't.

 

I agree with your premise in part.

I think from this point forth the ring is spot on and whilst I respect it has a bad inconsistent lineage; the belt has enough prestige that it's worth fighting for which the traditional lineage hasn't always had in recent years.

 

I think in that instance the ring should be applauded because video evidence clearly shows dawson grab the back of hopkins knee and fling him forward.

The connection to golden boy is terrible though.

the reason why is since erdei retired (probably because his promoter put a gun to his head) the "lineal" picture is actually quite clear with no disputed claims (sure guys like cotto have every right, imo, calling themselves a champ because they sit atop the rankings, but there's something undisputeable about a new cliam being created) and as I've said before, every man I think should be lineal has a belt and every man who has a belt is lineal, imo [floyd being an exception but his 15 month unenforced inactivity is essentially a vacation of the throne] so the last thing we need is another ring scandla leading to more power for the belts.

It isn't perfect and some aren't going to be happy with a 1 v 3 situation but it is far better than any other ranking body and that's enough for me (especially now with the old lhw controversy gone away)

Plus with media recognition the ring belt is paraded on world championship fights so is easy to track and worthwhile to compete for (unlike the farce that was briggs v foreman)

 

no because no other fair system is able to generate enough media acclaim.

Out of the "recognised" belts the ring is by far the fairest system.

Whilst it isn't perfect and it's lineage is probably best to be ignored, the guys it has as champs now have the best claim to any sort of linearity.

The only other solution is some form of boxing universe rebellion as far as I can see?

Like Stone says, when it comes to a definite champion there should be some consensus, that way everyone wins because challengers have to earnt heir shots and the number 1 challenger will be a bloody good fight (the equivalent of a unification today).

The ring is the best of the recognised titles and whilst it isn't perfect, ti's the best we have.

 

Again with the reading comprehension.

The ring's lineage is poor, as is cbz's both are littered with errors and inconsistency.

I'm not talking from a historical context because a definitive lineage does need creating and one that's been researched. I am confident someone has done this though.

What i'm discussing is the current boxing landscape.

Only the ring rank every boxer regardless of belts. Only the ring rank like this as well as being acclaimed to be a world championship belt.

I say it's the best we have for those reasons, which system do you think is best from a generic viewpoint?