Has Wlad done enough to establish lineage?

It's been said, but I guess this thread won't die so it bears repeating... the "traditional" method of re-establishing lineage after a retirement is by #1 vs #2. Nothing to do with belt unifications/"undisputed" titles... consensus #1 vs. consensus #2. This, of course, leaves grounds for plenty of argument but right now it wouldn't... there's a clear #1/#2. Without that fight, no lineage.

Unless the current state of ABC boxing is going to usher in new rules of lineage, even if he's the consensus #1 (I think he is), Wlad hasn't reestablished lineage.

 

It would be this last point that people are debating.

"Undisputed" used to have a specific meaning in boxing as recently as 10 years ago: holding the belts of the top 3 sanctioning bodies, which at the time were WBC, WBA, and IBF. These days, the WBO is regarded on the same tier as those other belts (which is NOT a compliment; these organizations are all horrid), and The Ring Magazine belt is regarded as a legit title by many to differing degrees.

Considering that a lot of prior linear champs did not hold all these belts when they vacated, I don't think a new heir to a vacated crown would necessarily have to claim all the belts. More than one definitely. I'm not sure how many, to be honest. But in this case, I just think enough has been accomplished.

 

This makes some sense. I'm going to consider it.

 

I pretty much agree about the WBO (but IMO that is still not as good. In most divisions it is, but it also has some real shockers), but I'd leave it out. I can understand people wanting it in. And yes, the other belts are horrid too most of the time.

The Ring belt I don't agree with. No matter how much people go on about, they are a magazine. Yes, it might be a nice icing on the cake, but seriously, that's all it is.

The problem with decreeing Wlad champ now really is Vitali.

Lets pretend we say Wlad is lineal. Then somebody like Haye beats him - even better in controversial circumstances. What will happen then, is people will say "Haye is lineal champ". Then there will be outcries "no, no Vitali is better, it was a fluke, Haye is not the best" etc etc.

I can go with undisputed. i can even go with consensus (which you'll never get) 1 v 2 - but we know Wlad will never fight Vitali, so he can't get it that way either - and you can't give him a free pass just because it's his brother.

 

So has Wlad done enough to establish a new lineage?

I think he has cleaned out the division except for the one guy who would give him big problems.

I don't expect them to ever fight but until the top 2 guys in the division fight there is no lineal heavyweight champion.

We'll have to wait until Vitali retires.

 

not really.

 

Now, practically, but not absolutely so.

When Vitali retires, and Wlad becomes undisputed, his reign would be backdated to 2006, and Vitali would be relegated to second place, as he is now.

Just like Holmes reign began in 1978, not in 1980 when he beat Ali, or Johnson in 1908, not in 1910 when he beat Jeffries, or Tyson in 1986, not in 1988.

 

Holmes' reign didn't start in 1978. It started in 1979 or 1980. Why? Because Muhammad Ali (or Leon Spinks) was still Champion in 1978. Ali was Champion until September 1979, so Holmes couldn't have been Champ until then.

You can say Johnson was Champ since 1908, Wlad was Champ since 2006, Frazier was Champ since 1970, etc. But you can't say Holmes was Champ since 1978...Mainly because Ali was the Champion until September 1979.

 

no, vitali is number one!

 

This content is protected

 

The historical perspective for what it is worth, is that lineage has been established on less credible grounds in the past.

By no means every fight for the vacant lineal title, has been between the two best fighters on the planet. Not least of the problems has been that top black contenders were denied the right to participate in eliminators for the vacant title. After Gene Tuynney retired, an elimination tournament was held to determine his sucessor. George Godfrey was denied the right to participate, despite being favoured by some to win, and the topurnament was eventualy won by Max Schmeling on a foul.

I could give pleanty of other examples of less than stelar procedures for re-establishing lineage.

Whether or not Wlad is accepted as lineal champion depends largley on whether or not the public accept him as such. Personaly, I do not think that his failure to fight his brother barrs him from holding the linel title based on past prescedent.

 

No Wlad isn't lineal and he won't be until Vitali retires and he wins the WBC belt to become lineal and undisputed champion. Once this occurs I think Wlad can really then establish his legacy without being under the shadow of the possibility that his brother is better.

Once we have a true dominant champion then maybe the division will get interesting again as there will only be one champion and the contenders may have to earn their shot rather than just wait on the Klitschko merry go round.

 

Wlad doesn't have to win the WBC for lineage after Vitali retires (although he obviously wants to) he just needs to beat the #2 in the division after Vitali retires.

 

that's not true mate. lineage gets established many different ways:

hart v root for the hw championship, both handpicked by jeffries.
robinson v bell for the ww championship, bell was the first guy available
briscoe v valdez for the mw championship, the two highest ranked available fighters
ellis v frazier for the hw championship, unification
hopkins/joppy/holmes/tito for the mw championship, box off tournament
ali v holmes for the hw championship, came out of retirement
tyson v seldon for the hw championship, usurped previous lineage

and today wlad has accrued his status over an elongated period of dominance were he's cleared out the division.

 

good post janitor, for what's it's worth i offered up a list of well established lineages that begun not with the best two in the world fighting each other.