Has Wlad done enough to establish lineage?

Wladimir and Vitali are teammates, they can't fight and Vitali has elected that his little bro establish lineage

 

in a way this is highly significant.

there is also the fact that wlad has beaten all the other belt holders, combine that with vitali repeatedly saying "i will not fight wlad" and "wlad is too strong, he is the champion" it kinda renders any dispute moot.

 

I don't believe there's any doubt Wlad has established lineage.

Let's look at the only title Wlad doesn't have--the WBC belt. When Vitali retires, the WBC had (lol) Rahman and Barrett go at it, followed by Rahman/Toney. The belt passed from Maskaev to Peter and back to Vitali.

Rahman had zero claim on the lineage, I think that Don King had simply installed him as mandatory when Vitali retired (this was after Rahman had lost credibility by losing to Lewis, Holy, and Ruiz and drawing Tua). Rahman and Toney were clearly not the #1 and #2 heavyweights at the time--pretty sure Byrd was on top of the Ring rankings until Wlad beat him.

Moreover, Wladimir has since destroyed Rahman and Peter.

Point is, post Vitali the WBC was a paper title with no claim on 'lineality', and Wlad eventually trashed the paper champs.

Vitali was retired when Wlad went out and built his lineage (Peter, Byrd, Brock, Ibragimov etc). Wlad is the lineal champ--he beat almost every top heavy from the 2000s.

 

:rofl

Why the f*ck would Wlad have to beat whoever wins that belt next? It'll probably be Chambers, Arreola, Haye or someone like that, a paper champion. GTFO.

 

Personally I think you either have to beat the linear champion to become a linear champion and if there is no linear champion to beat you must become undisputed by winning all 3 major belts (or 4 if you count the WBO).

Simply being regarded as the best in the division is not enough to be regarded as linear you must PROVE your superiority by winning all the belts, is that so hard to figure out.

Lewis wasn't linear until he beat Briggs and wasn't undisputed until he beat Holyfield and won all the belts, you have to earn these titles not just be given them by the consensus belief that you are best by the fans and critics.

 

Difference is that holyfield never turned round and said "lewis is better than me and I promised my mum i'd never fight him"

Wlad has 4 of the 5 belts and the fifth beltholder has said he'll never fight him. That's as undisputed as it gets imo

 

Ironically, lineal champion concept was developed to overcome sanctioning bodies corruption and paper champions.

 

Yes.

 

Apart from actually being undisputed. I'm a traditionalist he has to win all the belts WBA, WBC and IBF to be undisputed, getting close doesn't count in my book. When has there ever been a champion that was regarded universally as undisputed without winning all the major belts at some point? Why are the rules different for Wlad to be regarded undisputed without doing what every other undisputed champion has done?

It's a moot point anyway whoever is WBC champion after Vitali retires is getting beat by Wlad anyway so he will be undisputed and linear then for me.

 

True, boxing is never that simple is it. It's hard enough just to beat your opponents to earn recognition as champion but you have to beat the sanctioning bodies and boxing promoters as well. A boxers life is not an easy one.

 

Yes, yes and yes.

To me, his lineage began during either one of his wins vs Ibragimov/Chagaev.

 

A few occasions actually.

Chavez beat taylor to start a new lineage unifying two belts.

Nunn beat kalambay to start a new lineage.

Hill beat maske to start a new lineage.

Castillo beat lazcano to start a new lineage and that was just one belt I believe.

4 off top of my head there. Many more cases throughout history.

 

How is a fighter undisputed when there is another title holder who's very existence as another recognised champion disputes his existence as the undisputed champion?

All you have named are examples of where the 2 best fighters in a division have faced off and unified 2 belts. While often the 3rd title holder was not regarded highly, it does not meant he does not have a claim to being the best and therefore disputes another champions claim to be undisputed.

We both have different concept in what we both regard as undisputed champion, for me it has always been winning all major titles while being regarded as the best. I for one would not have regarded Calzaghe undisputed when Ottke retired just because he was obviously the best champion left as he was the only other long reigning title holder and I wouldn't do the same with Wlad when Vitali retires.

 

We do have different ideas, but those lineages are all set in stone.

A champion tracing a lineage doesn't always begin with a complete unification. There are no hard and fast rules with this. It's a subjective sport at the end of the day and one man's champion is another man's titleholder.

 

Yes, he has. Once Wlad retires there will probably be another 10 years before someone gets as dominant a champ as Wlad is now. Of course, there's always a possibility that someone defeats him and picks up his torch. I personally don't want that to happen, but for boxing overall it will be the best scenario tbh.