Has Wlad done enough to establish lineage?

This is purely hypothetical obviously but say Haye (or anyone else,) lost to Vitali then beat Wlad then the way things are you wouldn't say Haye had won the lineal heavyweight title from Wlad, most people would say that Vit had a stronger claim on it. Alternatively say Valuev fought Wlad and fluked a win but then wouldn't fight Vit then it would be back to saying there is no lineal champ again.

The fact you can make these scenarios where Wlad can lose yet whoever beats him wouldn't be lineal champ, to me, means Wlad hasn't established a lineage.

If someone that didn't follow boxing asked me who the heavyweight champion of the world was I would say Wlad Klitschko. I'd say he is the closest thing to a "real" world champion that there is and deserves recognition as a champion but as I've already said I don't see how he can establish a lineage with his brother around unless he fights him.

 

Vitali fought the champ, many people think he even won, but he was clearly the next in line and fought Sanders for Lewis`s vacant title. Sanders had just beaten Wlad! Vitali won the RING belt and everyone called him lineal, whether he was or not he was absolutley the top guy. Wlad had just been beat again by Brewster and out the picture, Vitali was the only guy. He retired unbeaten, came back and beat the prentender to his WBC title and if he was lineal because of having the RING belt then then he is still lineal now.

Wlad hasnt beaten a champion, he hasnt fought a champion, he hasnt beaten the next best ranked guy in the division even. Beating a guy with a claim to Ruiz`s WBA belt [becaus ethats where it came from] doesnt amount to becoming Undisputed, or True or Lineal. Vitali is in his way!

 

In actuality Wlad also won the WBA belt in his last fight. The WBA is crooked, all the belts are trinkets these days. We cant use unification of the belts to establish new lineage.

I think the fans along with the ring magazine think of wlad as the champ. In my eyes he is the man. I dotn think there is many people that dissent from this opinion and it is more widely held then debated.

In my eyes we have one real champ, Wlad. So in my opinion he is the champ and has established a new lineal line.

 

I know that but its those same Klitschko fans that claim Vitali won against Lewis and also say that when he beat Sanders for the Ring belt he became true and Lineal. Those same people claim Wlad to be Lineal because he has the RING belt. They cant have it both ways. If Vitali was lineal then he must still be.

 

If you wanna make the belt argument, wlad has the ibo, wbo, ibf and just beat the real wba title holder. that just leaves vitali with the wbc.

Wlad is also recognized by the ring. I think thats enough for the lineal crown.

 

If Vitali was Ring champ and supposed Lineal in 2005 then he still must be! He never lost it! If its Lineal then Wlad has to be Vitali to claim it. To be champion you cant duck the next best guy in the division and still claim supreme undisutedness as number 1.

 

Vitali was never lineal, he won the wbc and thats all. Vitali has been inactive while wlad has been stopping top 10 guy after top 10 guy.

The only reason wlad doesnt have all the belts, if that matters, is that ihe wont fight his brother, so we can excuse that belt.

Wlad has beat down everyone in the ring and he will continue to do so.

 

Vitali still has the stronger lineage as champion.

Vitali actuallty fought the last champ, in Lewis`s last fight. The same people that call Wlad lineal say that Vitali beat Lewis! Therefore Vitali would be the legit lineal! Wlads never fought the champ, win or lose!

But apart from that,

Vitali fought for Lewis`s vacant title against Sanders [who was WBO champ]. Sanders had beaten Wladimir in his last fight and Vitali then beat Sanders. Vitali holds the lineage of victory over Wladimir through Wlads unavenged loss to Sanders. Vitali won Lewis`s retired belt and in reality the WBO belt since Sanders was only stripped of it for fighting for the WBC belt!

Vitali gained the Ring belt also which he never lost and the same people that are calling Wlad lineal for holding it called Vitali lineal. He retired without losing his championship so surely retains the linealality. When he returned from retirement he beat the holder of his WBC belt to clear up any claim to that status.

Wlad gained his IBF belt from Byrd! Byrds claim to that belt was beating an undeserving 42 year old Holyfield for a VACANT paper title at the time that Lewis was THE CHAMPION, that belt did not make Byrd champion. Lewis was. Wlad also gained the paper and VACANT IBO title in this fight! All Wlads belts were Vacant titles with no lineage behind them greater than Vitali`s.

The WBO belt Wlad holds was won off Ibragimov in the worst fight in history, Ibragimov won the belt from a line that goes back to a VACANT championship fight for it which Wlad lost to Brewster after it was stripped from the holder, Sanders who ko`d Wlad for the WBO belt and then lost that lineage to Vitali.

THERFORE WE CAN CONCLUDE THAT THE LINEAGE OF CHAMPIONSHIPS RUN STRONGER THROUGH TO VITALI KLITSCHKO.

To summerise, Vitali holds this over Wlad,

Lewis`s retired title, WBC.
He never lost the Ring title.
Lineage of victory over Wlad.
Lineage of WBO title.
Vitali also [along with Lewis] holds Emiritus title.

Who really thinks Wlad would beat Vitali anyway?

 

I think that there are three main trains of thought on the lineal thing:

1) The purist/literal view and that is you win very specific titles that have always decided linearity despite how times change.

2) The 2 out of 3 (or 3 out of 4) rule where you have to take a majority of the belts that matter.

3) The spirit of linearity, wherein you've beaten everyone that matters.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Depending on how much I've had to drink, I either feel that he's done enough to be anointed linear champion (#2) or I feel that since there's a very real question concerning who is better, Wladimir or Vitali, that neither can be the champion without facing the other (#3). Today I lean toward #3.

 

:good:good

 

I think Vitali is the best HW out there, but Wlad is the one who achieved enough to be called the real champion. It's a tough call between the two.

What hurts Wlad is the fact that the competition out there is not that much. But if he stays at the top for 3-4 fights then he should stablish lineage and even become ATG, as those fights should happen against Povetkin, Dimitrenko, Haye and Valuev/Arreola.

 

You have to say no...First off I know that the two will never fight, but they are clearly number one and number two as heavyweights, and as such you cant hve a lineage if the two best fighters in a weight never fights...Second off I actaully think that Vitali has been slightly more impressive, and I would lean toward him as the number one heavyweight since Lewis retired..

Bottomline is unless Vitali leaves boxing, loses to a fighter that Wlad has beatten, or they fight each other(which I really hope they dont do, boxing isnt that important. Nor is the money that would come from them fighting), you cant have an established number one guy.

 

No, untill he fights and beats Vitali not only is Wlad not the Undisputed champion but he hasnt established any lineage.