Is this list of lineal champions right and how did Wlad get there?

Lineage is 'up to you' as much as 2+2 is 'up to you'. If you accept that number 1 and 2 must fight to fill a vacant championship, Wlad can't be champion because Vitali was number 2 when Wlad beat Chagaev. And if you can see that who's number 2 or 3 not and indeed any position can often be difficult to determine and a matter of dispute... you should reject all rankings because they're all merely opinion-based. To truly establish a vacant legitimate championship boxing needs consistent, objective rankings. I'm not here to pimp my own efforts to do this, but it's annoying that fans continue to debate about lineage without seeing the futility of doing so in the landscape of the sport for the last 40 years.

There are two options: admit rankings are pointless and ignore them all if you see boxing as uniquely event-based, or push for objective rankings like any other sport uses (that are more sensible that boxrec's)...

www.worldboxingrankings.proboards.com

 

Wlad is linear champ of paper titles...

 

LINEAR championship is established by beating the guy who beat the guy who beat the guy... and so on sooo techincially lennox lewis was the last liner champion however.... that being said wlad probably Reestablished "linearness" of the hw championship

 

The heavyweight championship should be considered vacant since Lewis retired. The Ring gave Vitali its championship when he beat Sanders, but Byrd probably should've been higher than either at the time. Credible boxing historians will leave a big fat asterisk beside each of the Klits names in the history books.

Damn, the above poster beat my slow typing about Lewis.

 

Wlad is not lineal, neither is Vitaly. They would have to fight each other to get the lineage back. As of now there are 4 major belts and they have to get unified imo to get a lineage back.