Did anyone accept VITALI as the legitimate heavyweight champion when he beat Sanders?

Nope, Byrd was #2, trust me.

The Ring decided that the winner of Vitali/Sanders was going to be their new Champ because:

-It was a fight for the WBC belt, and Sanders was also the WBO beltholder who had to relinquish it.

-Sanders had defeated the #1 in Wlad.

-Byrd was inactive or involved in controversial decisions at the time.

 

Not always. If Sanders had been a Top10 contender before fighting Wlad, and then defeated Wlad...then he could have been #1. But Sanders was unranked. Beating the #1 doesn't always make you the #1.

If Sprott defeated Wlad tomorrow, would you rank Sprott as #1?

Ehh, read the rules. The Ring awards their belt to the winner of fights between #1 and #2 contenders and also -in some cases determined by them- between #1 and #3.

One of this cases was Vitali-Sanders, others were Vasquez-Larios and Calzagher-Lacy.

I agree.

 

That's why I said, on my first post, that I consider Vitali the man at HW during 2004/2005. Not Lineal Champ, but Champ just like Marvin Hart or Tommy Burns were Champs. And like Ezzard Charles during 1949-1950 or Larry Holmes between 1979-1980 (before defeating shot Louis and shot Ali).

I'm sure and I remember that Byrd was #2 at that time, but he was barely winning fights (Oquendo, Golota, McCline were close or controversial) and Don King wasn't risking his beltholders against Vitali.

 

No.

I didn't consider him the true champ despite what The Ring magazine or HBO said.

I would have made Vitali a favorite in a rematch over Byrd and the other top heavyweights at the time.

But that's why guys fight. It's not about speculation.

 

no.

 

Yeah, Byrd. Probably Ruiz (ugh) as well. After losing to Roy, he beat Rahman, who was coming off a draw (which should have been a win) over Tua. Tua was on a good streak before fighting fat Rahman.

Vitali jumped too much in The Ring's rankings IMO. He went from #10 to #4 for LOSING to Lennox Lewis. How many guys go up 6 rankings for giving a tough fight by losing fairly to the champion? Then he went from #4 to #1 for beating Kirk Johnson, a guy who was in the middle (or lower end) of the top 10 and whose last fight against a heavyweight of note (old Savarese does not count), he DQ'd his way to defeat.

More fights were needed to establish a true champion, but the Ring jumped the gun, probably anxious to annoint anyone the heavyweight champion.

 

No cause I didnt rank Sanders in the top 3 or even 5 he hadnt beat anyone aside from that 1 fight with Wlad and that wasnt enough for me. I had Klitschko ranked 2nd in my ratings because he looked good vs Lewis and destroyed Kirk Johnson which at that time was a big deal. Byrd was number 1 and they didnt fight each other.

 

I would have given him the nod with one win over another claimant.

While losing to Lewis, Vitali proved that he was a top contender. Afterwards, he defeated Johnson, Sanders and Danny Williams. These wins were enough to hold on to his top contender status, but not enough to claim king of the division status. He really needed a win over someone like Byrd to claim the title.

Wladimir lost to Sanders, and Brewster then didn't look too great againtst Williamson. Wladimir has since gone on and won his next 5 fights. His wins over Peter, Byrd, and Brock are more impressive than the fighters Vitali had beaten in his last three outings.

So I will accept Wladimir now, but not his brother before him.

 

What does figuring that someone is the likely heir apparent have to do with ranking a guy too highly? Jumping up six rankings from #10 to #4 for fairly losing a tough fight to the champion, and then going from #4 to #1 for beating a middle or lower-end top 10 guy is too much.