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

I don't believe Byrd ever beat Vitali. Vitali withdrew from a fight he was winning by a mile.

Again, the Sanders fights are much more valuable in gauging the brothers' relative abilities, which is where I place Vitali over Wlad.

Of course, Wlad's résumé is the better of the two and, since a fraternal fracas is not in the cards, he should, on merits and titles held, be the acknowledged champion.

I'm of the opinion that titles mean something. You want to be called a champ? Topple the belt holder. Tournament winner Jimmy Ellis was a champion going into the Frazier fight, and Floyd Patterson was the only champion in the ring when he first met betting favorite Sonny Liston. So with Wlad, who holds nearly all the belts.

The Klitschkos are unprecedented: two brothers as Numbers 1 and 2 in the world. We must accept that the World Champion has a brother who is probably better, but will never fight him.

It will be interesting to see how this all eventually ends up.

 

Agreed, much of this is subject to personal opinion. My interpretation is: he never intended to stay away for too long, and his brief stint at cruiserweight was a one-fight campaign from the beginning. Now, we must differentiate between the WBO and the lineal belt; abdication in the one does not follow to the other.

Seeing as he readily weighed-in at 178, a mere 3 pounds and change north of what he's used to, if he did not make an instant determination before the bout to continue at light heavyweight, he certainly made it immediately after as the link I provided indicates. No lasting retirement took place; he wasn't even gone for a year.

It was magnanimous of him to throw his stablemate a bone like that, but I'm not convinced he moved up. Moved up to light heavyweight and 3 pounds? Yeah, I doubt it.

 

Magnanimous perhaps but it's still what it is.

He never accompanied his relinquishment with a statement such as "but i'm still the champion of the division" etc.

In terms of a purist sense he has a claim due to not losing in the ring but in the same sense robinson had the exact same purist claim as did ali in 71 and 80. Personally I don't buy into any of them but I can appreciate where the claim comes from.

 

yeah that's why i pretty much abandoned any hope of a return of the lineal champ; i just look t the guys and decide who i think the best is.

 

Why would he qualify his statement? Does he value the history of the lineal title? Does he even understand or appreciate what it is he holds? He was addressing the governing body to which he was a champion, it certainly was not foremost in his mind, if it was there at all. Fact is, he didn't even make a public effort in the way of a press conference to announce it. So when he says, "I am no longer champion", it really just means he no longer wishes to represent the WBO and only the WBO.

With Robinson and Ali, there was retirement; they named their replacements; there was a prolonged absence from the sport. It looked for all the world like they were never to box again. This is not that.

That is, without question, the most poignant piece of information to remember. Right now, Hopkins is the best. But when you're a stickler for tiny details like me, the true world championship is also something to mull over.

 

Then me and you view the byrd-vitali fight in different ways.

 

He'd qualify his statement if it was a title (lineal champ) he wished to retain. He completely and utterly relinquished his claim and for someone who likes the tiny details you seem to be completely overlooking his vacation of the throne.

Well floyd announced a sham retirement after beating hatton, why is that not also overlooked?

No what's poignant is the context I was using; I hold no value on the lineal title today nor any other days. When evaluating a man's career I use my own subjective judgements not the lineage of some mythical, racist nor contradictive title. Today I think hopkins is both the lineal champ and premiere fighter in the division, 5 years ago I think hopkins was the premiere fighter but erdei was the lineal champ (a title he retained until he vacated [unless one maintains a purist view about vacation and retirement])

 

I already answered this many times over.

You mean the sham retirement that kept him away for two years? That sham retirement? Didn't Pacquaio rise to the top of the pound-for-pound rankings in his next fight against Marquez? Wasn't Margarito seen as the number one welterweight in the aftermath after beating Cotto? Oh, and there is that little thing where Floyd actually said he's retired. What did Erdei say again? Did you even click on the link I posted?

When assessing their merits, sure. Crediting a fighter as world champion does not automatically boost his standing. No. I'd be stupid to think that the lineal and the best are always one and the same, but I do regard that title with respect nonetheless.

Stick to the rules or else don't use the term.

 

Yes that sham retirement.

Yes I did.

Rules? What rules?

No i'm a firm believer that the man makes the belt. I judge a fighter in terms of resume, divisional h2h speculation, how long they spent as the best fighter in the division and a consideration of intangibles. Which title they hold means nothing to me other than interesting debate on the beginnings of a new lineage and the continuation of am old lineage.

 

My conclusions:

- From a strict sporting standpoint, the Klitschkos should fight to determine the better of the two.

- Until then, like it or not, we have TWO champions and make of it what you wish.

- Someday a unified champion may emerge; until then, we should not force the issue: we have TWO champions.

 

I choose wlad because vitali vacated his throne and then took him self out of the running for those challenging wlad.

 

Yeah I mean the more I look into boxing the less relevance a claim to being the lineal champ today seems to have. Combine that with each division having 5 recognised world champions and it seems that for all intent and purposes boxing has regressed back to the original state of claimants (with less willingness to take each other on). That's 1 half of it.

The other half was feeling completely out of my depth in none heavyweight discussions about past boxers so I wanted an excuse to look into past greats and this modern day confusion gave me a good premise to start with.

This way I can study a plethora of boxers as well as clarify divisional history in my own mind.

 

But we are engaged in debate about exactly that. I can understand if you have no faith in a purely notional world championship; I'm no great defender of it myself. However, it does have a clear set of rules, and the lineage and logic can be correctly approximated. I see no reason for your reiteration of who you think the best is or how you do your rankings when we more or less agree on those points already. My objection has always concerned the lineal title, and your dismissal of Erdei's claim.

Once again, we are only arguing whether vacating the WBO belt is tantamount to relinquishment of a mysterious and oft-argued concept not likely to have crossed his mind at the time. You say by doing so he effectively surrendered his lineal claim also. I maintain that he is champion and have cited parallels from the past.