Is it a bad precendent for The Ring to give Klit/Chagaev winner the title?

Right, like I said, certain instances does not mean "special" circumstances, it just means they may grand the title to the winner of a fight between #1 & #3 if they feel #3 guy is a good enough fighter. But in the end I think we're in agreement, on a scale of 1 to 10, if Wlad is a 10, Vitali is a 9, Chagaev is a 7...I don't think Chagaev's presence qualifies this fight... they didn't give the belt to Mosley after he beat Margarito, so what's so different here?

 

Unanimous or overwhelming recognition.

the ring title is not the defacto creator of linearity and never has been. Their paths converge often but nothing more.

 

I dont think its bad at all. Chagaev is undefeated and a WBA champ so we have a unification here. Wlad can fight Haye at the end of the year.

 

that's a ridiculous statement to make. that means we haven't had a linear champion since Gene Tunney retired back in 1928. or if you're a fan of the WBC, then since Joe Louis retured in 1949.

 

Lennox Lewis

 

of course not