Since Lennox Lewis retired, who was his succesor as the linal champion and where has it gone since????
The consensus is that there has been no lineal champion since Lewis retirted. There are however two claims, that could have been recognised and might yet be. Vitally Klitschko, based on his win over Corrie Sanders. Wladamir Klitschko, based on his win over Ruslan Chagaev. The upcoming Klitschko Haye fight might turn out to be a tipping point.
I agree with the claims but disagree with the reasonings. When Lennox retired, the claims were Ruiz, Vitali, Sanders and Byrd. Vitali got some standing when he beat Sanders but it was really nothing more than a unification bout. I think his biggest claim came when the Byrd faultered and he was left as the last of the 4 still standing, although i cant remember if he was actually retired at this point. This leaves Wlad whose best claim came after he beat Byrd, who outside of Vitali was the original champ and the Chagaev win, was a further unification. I give Haye absolutely zero credit for his title since he only got because Chagaev tried to "unify". I think though that it is down to these two still, and whoever loses first will have a right claim lineage from the start of their reign.
Wladamir Klitschko imo. VK retire, and even if he was the rightful champion, gave it up in retirement(Like Jeff or Louis) Wlad since VK's retirement, pretty much face all willing to face him, and pretty much earn it with his win over Chagaev. There is really no one that has more of a stronger claim than Wladamir imo, and he doesnt even need Haye imo.
Really depends how you view it. Keeping with consistency at heavyweight I think the ring rankings have been there or thereabout. After lewis retired, vitali beat johnson and sanders beat wlad, these two where seen as two of the top three heavyweights. The winner claimed the new title in my eyes. Following his retirement there was a lul, with wlad seen as the leading contender. He defeated number 3 ranked chagaev for his claim to the title. Lineage is subjective and won't please everyone. Those disputing wlad's claim, how do they feel about hart, patterson and schmellings claims to start a new lineage?
If the Klitschko's keep fighting and winning, there can be no claims, unless they clash. If one retires, in this day and age, the other would have to beat two of the other top four fighters, before a claim could be even evaluated seriously.
In the era of discrimination against Black fighters, I do not think people doubted Hart's claim, it was just he was not Jim Jeffries. Again people did not like the way Schmeling won the title, but few doubted his claim. The only other claimant would of been the negro champion, and that was resolved by 1933 I believe. Patterson, like Hart suffered because he was following a heroic champ who retired undefeated, no one really doubted his claim.
Lewis was the last true World Champion at Heavyweight. If Wlad beats Haye, then i will almost accept him as The Champ, but sadly he will never fight VK & settle the debate as to who is the better BigKlit brother. Plus i despise the ultra-careful Wlad, he is mindnumblingly snooze-inducing. :tired The ideal situation is for Haye to beat Wlad, & then for VK to defeat him, so he would undisputedly be the World Champ. I say this because i don't see Haye beating VK, & despite his age Vitali would probably hang around for a while longer & rule the Heavyweight division with his Iron Fist, whereas Haye is determined to retire at a young age.
In my eyes, a TRUE Heavyweight champion in this day and age should hold at least 3 of the 5 important belts. This means, they must hold at least 3 of the following (simultaneously): IBF WBC WBA WBO Ring
I put no real precedence on an alphabet belt. As long as they beat the top contenders regardless of belt is what matters to me. Unifying is aesthetically pleasing but not always necessary. For instance today it is, because the belts are contained in the top 3 of the division. Sometimes we have higher ranked fighters than beltholder, for example at light heavyweight, a victory over Dawson means more than a victory over Shumenov.
I have The Ring's December 1955 ranking in front of me: Marciano of course, champ #1 Moore #2 Bob Baker #3 Tommy Jackson #4 Nino Valdez Patterson was #1 contender to Moore's 175lbs crown. Baker beat Valdez (December 1955); Jackson beat Baker (February 1956); Patterson beat Jackson in June 1956. Moore would remain undefeated in the time period, so I would say there is a strong case that Patterson and Moore were the top contenders for the vacant title.
What about the IBO title? I would consider that as important as any other alphabet title; WBU, WBF and IBC too... Also WAA, IBU, NYSAC, NBA...
yeah he beat Jackson for the number 2 spot and Moore was top ranked being the last man to challenge for the title. The winner has a solid claim. Meaning throughout history the champ has only ever beaten the champ or beaten the number 1/2 whilst ranked 1/2. Noone has done so since Lewis beat Briggs in 97 (or holyfield in 99 if you believe that Forewman wasn't a worthy champ). So to answer the TS, there is no champ since Lewis.
Vitali didn't really have a valid claim in terms of resume to be top3 before he faced Sanders. He had lost to Byrd (even if he should have won) who was top3, Ruiz had the better resume, Sanders had the win over the number 1 contender in Wlad. Vitali best win was Johnson who Ruiz cheated to beat, but ultimately Ruiz had the win first and Ruiz has the better win in Holyfield. So no Sanders-Vitali can not be for any lineal championship even if it was for the Ring title, even if Vitali was in reality the best he shouldn't have been ranked top3 After that Vitali retires, Wlad beats top 3 Byrd, Ruiz loses to Valuev (somewhat controversally but no one cares), Valuev loses to Chagaev. Chagaev gets hepatitis, Wlad beats Chagaev, thus unifying the top3 Wlad is pretty much lineal, although Vitali maybe best, but in reality the championship is now held by the Klitschko family