Who Is The Oldest Legitimate No.1 Fighter in His Division in History?

Let me start this very long post by saying I completely understand what you are saying.

The problem with both Wladimir and Vitali is they never beat the number-one guy in their entire careers. (This goes back to another thread I was commenting in on why the Klitschkos aren't well liked.)

Both were named Lineal champ after they beat the "third-best" guy available.

That said, I never fully understood why Vitali wasn't immediately recognized as the Lineal champ when he came back, because they never named another Lineal champ to replace him the whole time he was gone.

I know the title was declared vacant when he was out of boxing, but when he returned,
and he'd never been officially replaced, then why wasn't he still considered the champ?

As far as Wlad being the clear number one while Vitali was gone, I agree, he was to some degree. He "looked" like a number-one heavyweight. He didn't exactly clean out the division while Vitali was gone. (Sam Peter had him down a couple times and nearly out on Wlad's way to winning two of the four belts. Valuev had a belt. Maskaev and then Peter had belts. Povetkin was on the rise, winning "eliminators" on HBO. Wlad looked better than they did.)

If Wlad was clearly the best, though, Ring would've named him Lineal champ when he beat Byrd in their rematch or when he beat Ibragimov. But Byrd and Ibragimov weren't considered all that great themselves.

Then Vitali came back and beat and stopped Sam Peter - having a far easier time with him than Wlad did. It made perfect sense to continue recognizing Vitali as champ once he returned.

I DON'T HAVE PROOF, but I think Vitali wasn't immediately recognized as champ again simply because of pressure from places like HBO - which was trumpeting RING as "THE RATINGS" at the time.

Wlad was younger, he fought on HBO at the time, and Wlad was supposed to fight Povetkin in late 2008 on HBO. Povetkin had just defeated Byrd and Chambers on HBO. HBO was really pushing that as the "big" heavyweight fight between the two younger guys. At the time, Povetkin was viewed as having a good chance to beat Wlad. Their purse bid was pretty high.

With Vitali beating Peter, and Wlad about to fight Povetkin, there was sort of a four-man tourney happening. HBO was rooting for Povetkin.

Then Povetkin pulled out of the fight, dropped trainers, picked up Teddy Atlas, who decided Povetkin needed to be treated like he'd just turned pro, and HBO lost interest in him.

Then David Haye started to make waves. Haye wanted Vitali. HBO was excited about that. Then Haye wanted Wlad, so Wlad and Haye signed to fight.

So Vitali defended his title. Then the Haye-Klitschko fight got cancelled, and Chagaev stepped in.

When fans were going bat**** crazy about Wlad-Haye being off, Ring just said the winner of Wlad-Chagaev would be the Lineal champ.

It was a curious call at the time. Ratings aside, Chagaev was arguably worse than both Povetkin and Haye. Ring magazine just pulled the trigger and made a bad decision.

I know why a Wlad-Povetkin winner was a "more appealing" choice for Lineal champ in 2008, but Vitali should've KEPT the designation once he returned to the ring - since he hadn't been replaced by a Lineal champ while he was gone.

The situations are a little different, but when Ali officially retired in 1979, Holmes was already the WBC champ. Nobody considered him the Lineal champ. John Tate won the vacant WBA title Ali had left behind. Nobody considered him Lineal champ, either. The Lineal title was vacant.

When Ali announced his comeback, the Ali-Tate fight would have been for the Lineal title. Then Tate lost to Weaver, and then Ali planned to fight Weaver. But the WBA- in its wisdom - insisted Weaver fight Coetzee (their #1 contender) first, and Ali and Holmes was made.

I KNOW THIS WOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED - but if Ali came back and beat Weaver to regain the WBA belt ...

AND ALI (like Vitali) ended up successfully defending the WBA belt for FOUR YEARS, making another 10 title defenses while barely losing a round, before retiring again ...

DOES ANYONE BELIEVE Ali WOULD NOT have been viewed as the LINEAL champ?

If Holmes never fought Ali, and Ali came back, regained his belt from Weaver, and made 10 successful defense of that title - never fighting Holmes along the way -- THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL LARRY HOLMES IS NAMED BY RING AS LINEAL CHAMP ... EVER! And certainly not while Ali was holding a title and beating everyone he faced.

* Let me clarify again, I know Ali would never have done that. Unlike Vitali, he was shot. And Vitali wasn't as popular as Ali.

But I could never see Ring naming Holmes the Lineal champ if Ali had come back, regained the title, and kept defending it ... while Holmes did his own thing.

Yet, that's what happened with Vitali.

 

It gets complicated here, because the precedent is in no way consistent.

When Jim Corbett retired, Fitzsimmons and Sharkey fought for his vacant title, and Sharkey won it on a dubious DQ. When Corbett acme back from retirement, the Sharkey claim evaporated.

When Jeffries came back from retirement, most people acknowledged Johnson as the champion, though some disputed it. The fact that Johnson won obviously silenced the debate, which might have rumbled on if Jeffries had won.

When Joe Louis retired after the Walcott fight, most people recognised Charles as the new champion, though there were still those who disputed it. Again the result of the fight silenced the debate.

I think that there is sufficient precedent for Ring Magazine to say that Vitally vacated the title when he retired, and Wlad won it in his absence.

I would add that not every fight for the vacant title has literally been between the #1 and the #2. Politics has always played a role, as has expedience. Even if you are not sold on Wlads title claim based on beating Chagaev, you would have to consider a secondary claim based on beating Povetkin, who was then the #1 contender.

 

But Wlad DIDN'T win it in his absence.

Wlad "won" Lineal recognition from Ring nearly a YEAR AFTER Vitali had returned and regained the WBC title he'd vacated and had already successfully defended that title.

In every other instance that I know of, a new Lineal champ was named "before" the Lineal retired champ returned.

 

I guess they would argue that they had to strip Vitally due to his retirement, and then according to their own rules, the #1 and #3 could fight for the vacant title.

 

But he wasn't retired when they matched #1 and #3 to name a "new" Lineal champ.

He'd regained his WBC title and already had made one new defense of it.

That's the point.

THE RING's last "Lineal" champ was sitting in the #2 spot. And he was active and hadn't lost when the Wlad-Chagaev fight was made.

I know it's a unique situation, but the Ali-Weaver comparison is close. IF Ali had returned and fought Weaver (who Holmes had beaten - just like Wlad beat Peter), and Ali fought for several more years successfully defending his WBA title 10 times ...

Do you think Ring would've name Holmes the Lineal champ with an active Muhammad Ali beating top contenders and successfully defending his title 10 times? I don't.

 

Lineal champions have been created on more dubious fights previously. I could cite Marvin Hart as an example.

I suspect that to some extent Ring Magazine respond to the prevailing circumstances, and when it became apparent that the brothers would never fight, they decided to give their belt to Wlad as soon as he beat the #2 contender.

 

How do you "win" a "lineal" championship with beating a champion?? New lineages are "created" not won. But I agree that Wlad was the man after Vitali left. The idea that these guys are somehow lacking because they never fought a number 1 (i.e. each other) is simply ridiculous given the circumstances.

 

Isnt the problem here that Vitali's original claim to lineage didnt really establish himself as the lineal champion. When Ali retired, he was the clear no 1 without any disputes. Vitali never really had that, and Wlad's claim (with the exception of Vitali) really has become a clear no 1 claim now. I think it is because of this, that his claim chrystalizes right back to about the Chagaev fight or possibly even the Byrd or Brewster fights.

Of course, i do not think it is yet set in stone. For example, if Pulev (or anyone else really) were to beat Wlad but then be beaten by Vitali coming out of retirement, then clearly Vitali deserves the lineal credit. Obviously a Wlad vs Vitali fight, which isnt going to happen would also clarify things. Without further twists of fate though, i think that Wlad has done enough to be considered the current undisputed champion, and has done so for some time.

 

And likewise with Big George, Moorer and Holy as of mid 1994.

When Foreman beat Moorer, he was arguably the best at that moment, the manner of his victory notwithstanding.

 

No Holyfield was clearly the best of the three, notwithstanding Moorers victory over him.

 

Chris Byrd was number one in 2006. That fight made Wlad number one in the division.

 

delete - double post

 

No he wasn't. I don't know of a publication that rated Byrd that high.

Also, his fight with Williamson was arguably the worst heavyweight title fight ever staged. I defy anyone to sit through that.

After beating Holyfield, Byrd "barely" won any of his title defenses. Golota was a draw (I thought Golota won). His "win" over Oquendo was a bad decision. McCline had him on the deck and was actually outboxing him the first half of the fight. And the Williamson fight was simply horrible. Nobody threw anything. I haven't watched it since that night because it disgusted me, but I think both guys averaged landing 3 punches a round - at most.

Byrd wasn't #1 at the time. If the decisions in his title defenses had been more accurate, he was barely top 10.

 

He is. Look at this:

Look at the end of 2005, and see who is number one. This is post Vitali's retirement.

Now, if it isn't Byrd, who should be number one during April 2006? John Ruiz? Hasim Rahman? Serhei Liakhovich? Nikolai Valuev? Sam Peter?

 

Well at the point where Foreman defeated Moorer, HE was officially the best.

Any other interpretation is as subjective as declaring Hopkins the best out of Dawson, Hopkins and Pascal.