Has Wlad done enough to establish lineage?

Right.

With Vitali around, still dominantly holds the WBC title (the most legit of the four), and still steemrolling everyone, how can you say Wlad is linear?

:huh

 

So, after the IBF stripped Lewis, was he undisputed champ or not?

 

To all the naysayers: who in the current HW roster Wlad should fight to establish lineage (provided Vitali conceded his shot by saying he will never fight Wlad)?

 

Yes.

 

This is the core of it. Wlad already established his claim to the lineage BEFORE Vitali came back. Surely, Wlad was the man at heavy after beating Ibragimov....who else was there? And Wlad had destroyed two previous WBC belt-holders in Rahman and Peter. Vitali got his belt against a champ that Wlad had already beaten. It's bad luck that Vitali has been the #2 heavyweight since so Wlad's wins over Chagaev and Chambers and Haye were simply against the #3 at the time.

Wlad and Vitali cannot be expected to fight each other. So short of beating Vitali, Wlad could not have done more to establish lineage. He's beaten every substantive challenger willing to get in the ring.

 

Considering that he has beaten everyone in the current top 20, I'd say yes.

 

So if Vitaliy retires and for example, #1 contender Haye fights #2 Chambers for WBC, and then they will avoid fighting Wlad for unification, you would still not count Wlad as undisputed? Even though he beat them already

 

I do think that Wlad is being held to a higher standard than past champions who have established lineage.

Do you think we couldn't find pleanty of fault with the title claims of Marvin Hart for example?

 

he beat #3 in Haye but I guess he will not establish lineage until he beat his brother or someone else who will hold WBC belt (e.g. Adamek)

 

He was not ... but he was still linear champion
... he did refuse fight Ruiz and that made him pay a price.
There is no rule for losing the undisputed status
as there is strict rule for losing the lineage.

 

Once Vitali steps down then he'll be the true linear champion - I dont like the Klitschko's as boxers but its plain stupid to deny Wlad his legacy after his years of dominance albeit a very boring era .

 

heavyweight is different to all other weight classes

thre is a clear history and linage

You either have to beat the man r win the big 3

wbc wba Ibf

this klitschko deal is indeed unusual

 

If he was unfairly stripped he would still be linear if he avoided his consensus top contender then he would not be undisputed. For example when Bowe got the title shot at Holyfield at the price of having to face the winner of Ruddock/Lewis then dumped the WBC belt to avoid facing Lewis as agreed he gave up the right to be regarded as undisputed.

Should a champion be stripped of his title to face a more dangerous opponent he should still be regarded as linear. At least this is how I see it.

 

No he would be undisputed then as he has already proven his superiority over these opponents and their are no other title holders who have a genuine claim to be superior.

If Povetkin beats Chagaev and then earns the WBC he would have a genuine claim as being the champion and question Wlad's standing as undisputed as he has not proven his superiority over Povetkin.

I don't care how a fighter is regarded sometimes the fans and experts get it wrong. Liston was a huge favourite over Ali yet Ali won, Holyfield was a big underdog against Tyson yet he won. It's all about what you prove in the ring by who you beat I don't think the status of being undisputed champion can be so easily given to a fighter simply by general consensus.

 

Lineage will always be disputed and will always be set in stone by history, just the way it is