Now that CBZ has recognised Wlad as the lineal champion

Wlad doesn't have to fight Vitali to be lineal. Vitali retired and thus vacated. Wlad beat the number one contender for the ring/lineal title and IS the LINEAL CHAMPION. Besides,what would beating an arm punching steroid user prove? Nothing.

 

True. Spinks was the legitimate lineal champion when Tyson had all 3 belts in 1988. Tyson wasnt truly officially the real champ until he beat Spinks.

 

True. Retirement means you vacate the lineal title. Wlad fought the top contender for the Ring/Lineal belt in Chagaev.

 

That dont matter. Foreman beat the man who beat the man so he was lineal. Lennox Lewis was better at the time but only held the WBC strap. Foreman won the real title just like Spinks did. And Lennox beat Briggs who beat Foreman. Lennox knew he had to beat Briggs to be on that list that began with Sullivan.

 

So, Wlad Klit was the 8th highest paid athlete on the planet last year but there is no competition for the title that grants him this opportunity?

You people comment like anyone of you could get off your duff and be a contender next week. Go to a gym then and see how easy the sport is, how little competition there is in the division. The brass ring in this division is an income around 25 million USD per year. Yet, I continue to hear, how there is no competition for this prize.

 

Sure. They're also excellent examples of when it has meant very little. Spinks won it off of Larry Holmes and got a gift decision in the rematch, followed it up with fights against Steffend Tangstad and Gerry Cooney while Tyson ran roughshod through the division. When he took out Berbick, Smith, Thomas, Tucker (whom Spinks gave up the IBF strap not to fight) there wasn't a higher rated fighter he could've fought at the time each took place, essentially making them all the #1 contender with the exception of himself for the latter three, a wipeout of another rated contender in Biggs that October and another against Holmes - who rightfully deserved the decision in Spinks II - in January. A warm-up in Japan for big dollars and then KO1. :deal

 

Yep.

There was a thread a year ago regarding lineage. Poster Demigawd made some excellent points regarding the history of the heavyweights and the unofficial title of lineal champion. Most times it works, many times not. In the case of Spinks, Foreman and Vitali, they all became the true lineal champ but lost credibility as the rightful champion when not facing the top opposition.

 

Whatever it takes to make Tyson look less impressive.

 

Tyson went from being the youngest world heavyweight champ to merely the youngest heavyweight belt holder! Absurd. The Ring championship was basically a promoting tool to hype Tyson-Spinks. Despite being "lineal" champion, SPinks was the challenger to the undisputed championship held by Tyson.

 

Foreman lost all credibility when he ducked Tucker and didn't rematch Axel Schulz. A true champion defends against the best. FOreman didn't, thus getting stripped. Hey, it happens. Holyfield beating Tyson was for the championship, not Foreman-Grimsley or Foreman-Savarese.

 

Nope, Holmes was the champion, and he didnt lose it until Spinks I.

Spinks would hold onto the title until Tyson took it from him in 1 round. Alpha titles confuse the matter a little. But Spinks was the rightful heir to Sullivan, that is until Tyson took him out in a round.

 

They cant lose credibility for not faceing the top guys. You think Spinks, Foreman or Vitali were the first?

Sullivan, Corbett, Dempsey, Tunney, Braddock, Patterson, Ali near the end of his rein, Bowe(For dumping the title in the trash can instand of faceing Lewis) make that list. But neither of em lost the title for failing to meet the best.

Had Spinks been Jack Dempsey, Tyson would have waited over 7 years for his title. Assuming he even got a title shot in the end.

 

In the old days the undisputed champ was the lineal champ.
\
That was weird situation in 1988 because Spinks was the Lineal champ which means "real legitimate champ" but Tyson was the undisputed champ which means "real champ" also.
Either way,Tyson was the youngest belt holder and the youngest lineal champion as well.

 

That's right. It can get pretty confusing but I think we got it.

 

No sir I disagree respectfully of course. You only lose the lineal title by defeat in the ring or retirement. Axel Schulz couldn't hurt or knockdown an old man! Axel didn't TAKE the title and he didn't deserve it. Foreman was stripped of the IBF belt for refusing the rematch and I guess that was right. Foreman facing Savarese and Grimsely was just like Wlad fighting Mormeck.
Foreman fought Briggs at age 48! And Briggs was prime. That was crazy. George was 48 years old and he was pushing Briggs around and rocking him all night but Briggs got the nod. So Maybe George got a slight gift over Axel but Briggs got the gift over George. Holyfield and Tyson was for a belt from a corrupt alphabet organization. Foreman was the champ until age 48,the Briggs and then Lewis followed by Vitali and now Wlad.