The Linear Heavyweight title: What next?

Well no wonder the HW scene is struggling if there's still no 'linear' champion. It's been years since Lewis retired. Say what you will about post Jeffries era with Hart and Burns but atleast you had a champion. They sorted it out after Joe Louis and Rocky Marciano it's a harsh criticism of everybody from the fighters to the promoters to the governing bodies that this still hasn't been sorted. Ok the Alphabets weren't around back in the day but if anything they lack the power they once had, once fighters in the lower weights get to a certain stage their p4p rating in ring magazine matters far more than if they are WBA or IBF.

Hatton could fight De La Hoya next month and it would generate millions without a belt. Same for Haye vs Klit.

 

Not necessarily. Internal politics in alphabet groups has been going on for years. Historically the WBA roots back to the NBA. NBA was one of the major governing bodies in deciding world champions so it is needed if lineage is to be maintained. Given that the NBA does not exist anymore, we must go with what they rebranded themself as - the WBA.

For example, even when the IBF and WBO became splinter groups, it doesn't ruin the original organisations legitimacy towards lineage.

 

Perhaps this man is the answer to our prayers.......

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rBg8HM1xQ_k

 

But my point is the WBA is not the WBA from 1973, but an alien organization that has very little to do with the off spring of the NBA.

 

You seem to be misunderstanding the situation with the WBA. I suggest you research the subject. The WBA are the oldest sanctioining body.

 

I think at the moment Haye would have to beat both the Klitchko's then we would have an undisputed, lineal champ.

 

The WBA was formed from the NBA in 1962; but the WBA from 1962 to 1973 is a completely different organization, structure wise, to the 1974 to present day organization; as may know, if you researched the subject.

 

Like it or not, the syntax is… beat Lewis or unify the WBC/WBA/WBO/IBF Heavyweight Title (in the Hopkins era).

 

Structure or not the main difference is that they became a lagely Latin based organisation from the date you mentioned. It still has it roots in the original NBA so I see no issue with regarding this as the oldest sanctioining body and accepting it's historical significance.

 

Let's leave the WBO out of this, they have nothing to do with it.

 

I agree. Lets have someone unify WBC/WBA/IBF titles to establish lineage then after that nothing else matters. Alternatively if someone beats both Klitschko's or beats one and is beaten by the other then that's good enough for me. The WBA holder can be the first challenger.

 

Unify the three main belts, and a new lineage is started, no other way to do it that I can see.

If Wlads WBO/IBF belts were to be unified with the WBC belt......you could make a case for a new lineage. Its difficult, but the WBA at this time are a disgrace. Valuev probably wont be let anwhere near a Klit, and if he is beat by Ruiz or Chagaev, he will probably just become mandatory again. Dont quote me but their champions have gone something like Ruiz, Holyfield, Ruiz, Jones, Ruiz, Toney, Ruiz, Valuev, Chagaev, Valuev. With Chageav and Ruiz in line for more shots at the belt. Its pathetic. That belt has gone rogue basicly. Dating back to when Lewis was Champion.

Ideally though, the Klits need to grab that belt.

 

The WBO HW belt means **** all by the way. The champion in the division has never ever held it, it would be nice if all 4 are unified, but the WBA belt is the priority.

 

Not really. The WBA today still originates from the NBA, it even says so on its website.

 

But then why are the IBF involved?