What championship belt had the most credibility from 2000-2011? Also what one do you feel was the most corrupt, eg bogus rankings/tittle fights. and what one had the best championship fights. the ring / lineal WBC WBA IBF WBO
Most Credible WBC from 2000-2004 Champions Lewis 1997-2001 Rahman 2001 Lewis 2001 - 2004 and IBF from 2006 Champions Wladimir Klitschko 2006 - Present Least Credible and most corrupt- WBA Champions Lewis 1999-2000 (stripped) Holyfield 2000-2001 Ruiz 2001-2003 Jones 2004 Ruiz (interim, then became champ after Jones vacated) 2004-2005 Valuev 2005 - 2007 Chagaev 2007-2008 (demoted to champion in recess) Valuev 2008-2009 (should have lost to 46 year old Holyfield) Haye 2009-2011 Wladimir Klitshcko, 2011 - present Povetkin (Regular champion)
The wbc was the best until vitali retired. In the wake of his retirement byrd was the man to beat and he had the ibf crown. For the last 7 years the ibf champ has been the man of the division.
There hasnt been a "most credible belt" since the 80's. The Ring is the most credible. The Ring and/or Lineal title. You can trace the real championship back all the way to John L Sullivan. Frazier-Foreman-Ali-Spinks-Ali-Holmes-Spinks-Tyson-Douglas-Holyfield-Bowe-Holyfield-Moorer-Foreman-Briggs-Lewis-Vitali-Wladimir. Wlad is the real champ. Vitali is A heavyweight champ,Wlad is THE heavyweight champ.
[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heavyweight_boxing_champions[/ame] After Tyson it starts to become a bit of a joke (Barring one or two...)
I could really care less about the lineal belt. Its a way to track boxing history, and meant WAY more in a different era. In a time of fractured belts, all that really matters is who the best man in a division is. Wlad may still not be the lineal heavyweight champion, but he has been king of the heavyweights since he beat Byrd.
Too many variations on lineal for it to matter now. Loads of different criteria going on. As magna says, wlad's number 1 and that's all that really matters.
