THE CASE FOR VITALI KLITSCHKO BEING THE LINEAL WORLD HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION (PART I)

Hear me out here. It will be long (that's what she said). My argument is: Vitali's coronation as the legitimate heavyweight champion in April 2004 on the merit of beating Corrie Sanders, was widely accepted at the time. Even if his claim fizzled out by the time he retired in November 2005, we can't retroactively remove him from the list of lineal champions. You can't take away the title you already bestowed on somebody.

Let's start with 1 vs 2 argument. It was never a thing. When Marvin Hart beat Jack Root for the vacant championship, there were no rankings as we know them. They were just viewed as deserving (white) contenders to fight for the crown. Hart's claim was also widely disputed. Max Schmeling won the box off tournament, but won the championship on DQ. His claim was therefore somehow disputed. Ezzard Charles won 1 vs 2 match up against Jersey Joe Walcott, but wasn't universally recognized until he beat the returning Joe Louis. Some may even say until Louis beat Lee Savold. Patterson won the crown after a small box off tournament facing Archie Moore in the finals, who was the last challenger for Rocky Marciano's title. Holmes was universally recognized after Mike Weaver won the WBA belt and solidified his claim by beating returning Ali. Kind of like Charles.

Vitali was the number 1 rated HW in the world, the last challenger for Lewis' title, who gave him helluva fight and was winning on the cards before being stopped on cuts. Sanders in his previous fight bombed out the next heir apparent, number 2 HW in the world Wladimir Klitschko in 2 rounds. He also had the WBO belt, but vacated it shortly before the fight. They were definitely deserving contenders. Especially looking at the other title holders, where Byrd had 2 dispiuted decisions and Ruiz recently got his belt back, after the guy who beat him, vacated it.

In my view Vitali's claim is as strong as Marvin Hart's. The only difference is, Hart had Burn to further solidify his and ultimately landing in the hands of Jack Johnson who also beat Jim Jeffries, while Vitali retired after 1 title defence.

Starting with The Ring Magazine and their justifications of the coronation.

"Joshua Speaks" sent the following letter to The Ring, being concerned about their decision to crown the winner of Klitschko vs Sanders the legitimate HW champion: "Due to rumors that the Vitali Klitschko-Corrie Sanders fight will be for the vacant Ring championship, I would like to address two points. First, your policy states that in some situations, a fight between the number-one and number-three fighter can be for the vacant title. One might argue that such a case should only occur if there is a compelling reason, such as the unwilling ness or inability of the number-two contender to participate. Chris Byrd is desperate for heavyweight opponents, and due to the history between he and Vitali, why should the Sanders fight be approved when no negotiations have even been opened with the ready and willing number-two contender? Secondly, since the fight with Wladimir Klitschko took place on March 8, 2003, Corrie Sanders will officially have been inac tive for one year a full month before his fight with Vitali. Therefore, by your own ranking policy, he should lose his number- three ranking one month before the fight. It seems that you are more concerned with filling the vacant spot left by Lennox Lewis than with the validity of your own championship system."

Editor replied: "We will indeed recognize the winner of the Klitschko-Sanders fight, which is set to take place right around the time this magazine hits the newsstands. Your concerns are understandable, but here is our counter-reasoning: First, our decision on whether a vacancy can be filled without the number- two contender involved comes down to a judgment call on how strong a claim that number-two contender has to a title shot. Based on Byrd’s performance against Fres Oquendo in his last fight, any claim- that there cannot be a title fight without Byrd would be weak. And second, while Sanders will have been inac tive for more than a year by the time he fights Klitschko, our pol icy has long been to leave fighters in the rankings if they have a fight scheduled when they hit the one-year inactivity mark."

They doubled down after the coronation while discussing a potential Klitschko vs Byrd rematch: "This is a natural for two reasons. First, it would give Klitschko a chance to avenge his only loss to a still active fighter. And second, it would end any debate over who the real heavyweight champion is. Not that anyone recognizes beltholder Byrd as such, but many in the media won’t endorse Klitschko’s claim until he beats Byrd. Would those same people refuse to recognize Byrd as champ, even if he defeated Vitali again, until he avenges his loss to Wladimir? Of course not, and therein lies the hypocrisy of not supporting The Ring’s recognition of Klitschko-Sanders based on one four-year-old head-to-head result. To say you can’t have a heavyweight title fight without involving Byrd, a man who deserved to lose to Oquendo and drew with then-unranked Andrew Golota in his last two fights, is a serious stretch. Nevertheless, if Vitali-Byrd II could get everyone on the same page, it’s a fight worth making."

Argument from me: even tho Byrd did beat Vitali in 2000, his "lineal" win was taken away by Wlad, and then Wlad was beaten by Sanders. So Vitali beating Sanders took his L back.

Brent Matteo Alderson in the article "Vitali Klitschko: A Heavyweight Pretender Ordained By the Bible Of Boxing" gave his reasons for accepting the coronation when it originally happened: "In a way it’s kind of kind of hypocritical for me to disagree with their classification of Vitali as a former Heavyweight champion because at first I half-heartedly agreed with it because I thought that Vitali was one the best heavyweight in the world in lieu of Lennox Lewis’s retirement. I also felt that Vitali’s claim to the vacant title was supported by historical precedent since the only two times in heavyweight history when the lineage of the title was broken it had been restored by men that had been closely associated with the final title reigns of the retired champions.
This was the case when Archie Moore who had lost to Marciano in the Rock’s last fight was afforded the opportunity to fight Floyd Patterson to fill the vacancy and it seemed like it was also going to be the case with Lewis’s retirement since Vitali Klitschko had given the champion a very tough challenge in his last fight. Although the circumstance was a little different, Jack Sharkey was also chosen to fight for the vacant title for having given a strong performance against Jack Dempsey in the Manausa Brawler’s last fight before challenging Tunney in the famous long count fight. So I supported the Ring’s anointment of Vitali Klitschko as champion even though I was conscious of the fact that he had lost to fellow titleholder, Chris Byrd.
The main reason that I supported his claim was because of his little brother Wladimir. You see Wladimir had finely won all the skeptics over; he was a huge young Gold medallist with a fluid style and had knocked out Ray Mercer, Jameel McCline, and Monte Barrett. He was the heir apparent, the next heavyweight great who had impressively beaten some top contenders unlike Michael Grant who had been prematurely designated as a for sure future champion. So after Corey Sanders surprisingly knocked out Wladimir, the win automatically qualified the South African as one of the top heavyweight contenders since he had beaten the legitimate number one contender. Thus when Vitali Klitchko who was one of the top three heavyweights in the world was matched against Corey Sanders in the Spring of 2004 I considered their fight as being for the genuine vacant world heavyweight title."

I did some digging in the World Wide Web for press articles about the fight. BBC in their article "He who would be king" considered the Klitschko vs Sanders fight to be for the lineal title. In "Heavyweight boxers the new American buffaloes" The Telegraph wrote: "It would be silly to ignore the social significance of either Klitschko or Sanders becoming the first linear white heavyweight champion since Ingemar Johansson in 1959." Frank Lotierzo in his article "Corrie Sanders: Is He Really All That?" for Boxing 24/7 also considered it to be for the lineal title. Post Bulletin in "Boxing is so desperate for attention that Tyson looks good" shared the same sentiment. SouthCoast Today in "Heavyweight contenders have reached a new low" previewed the bout as: "for the WBC and linear (true) crown that Lennox Lewis abdicated." The Globe & Mail in "Boxing craves Klitschko victory" compared the fight to Hart vs Root bout. Even Daniel J. Castellano in his critique of the concept of the lineal championship wrote: "Klitschko’s performance against Lewis, and the latter’s reluctance to grant a rematch, proved the Ukrainian’s legitimacy as the top contender. His brother Wladimir had also been considered a serious contender until his loss to Corrie Sanders for the WBO crown. The powerful Sanders could then join the top three along with Vitali Klitschko and Chris Byrd. Therefore Vitali Klitschko’s bout with Corrie Sanders for Lewis’ abandoned WBC title may be considered the true heavyweight championship, and it was regarded as such by Ring Magazine, whose rankings have gained much public credibility in recent years."

Remember, the concept of the lineal championship isn't that popular in the mainstream media. It was even less popular back then, before Tyson Fury reintroduced it to the broader public in 2018. So the usage of this word in these articles means a lot. We don't know however if this is just based on The Ring authority, or these journalists actually knew what they were talking about.

Part II to follow.

 

Bump.

 

Fury's case is more similar to Ali's, then Foreman's imo. George was at least fighting on a semi-regular basis. Fury lost the public recognition of his lineal title by not fighting for 2.5 years, claiming retirement a couple of times during it, officially abdicating in October 2016 and having his license revoked. Positive drug test didn't help his case. So I'm inclined to say Fury's claim fizzled out by the time The Ring stripped him in Feb 2018. Especially since there was a consensus starting to form around AJ after the Parker fight (no 1 vs no 3). Ali "retired" in Feb 1970, but right after Frazier vs Ellis fight, he again claimed he's the real champion, lol.

 

I didn't see any such claims from Louis when he came back in the press. He was saying he came back to win the title again. Sort of like Ali after coming back in 1980. I also don't think Jeffires considered himself the champion anymore. He specifically claimed, he came back to win back the title for the white race. You can't win back something you already posses. He needed to beat Johnson for that. Otherwise, simple unretirement would be enough.

 

On the other hand, you can just consider the throne vacant and I think that would be the most realistic view on the situation between 2018 and 2020.

 

We don't. First fight was closer than people remember and Byrd evolved since then. But Vitali would be a favorite.