If you're asking this silly question, I'm not sure you really understand the concept behind the lineage of lineal championships. :smoke
:good All that is left is to unify with Adonis Stevenson, but that is technically all the separates Wlad from being the best at heavy and nobody thinks he really needs to unify with Deontay Wilder to prove that.
No, I would imagine it would've been vacant since Lewis retired. No 1 v No 2 won't have happened due to the Klitschko brothers ruling until Vlad beat Povetkin. The 175 is more debatable I think going all the way back to the Jones/ Dariuz debate.
Yeah, what am I thinking - he beat Stiverne, who beat Arreola for the vacant WBC title. He certainly didn't beat "the man" (as Stiverne was never "the man", and never even faced anyone that was "the man" to become champ). I remember having read someone recently calling Wilder the lineal champ but must've been a troll or someone very badly confused, or they meant "WBC champ" (which is viewed as the most legitimate of the 4 major alphabet org belts, as that was the one Ali wore, and the one Tyson wore throughout his prime from Berbick through Douglas)
Stevenson is lineal champion. Many/most people have been ranking Kovalev #1, however, since the Hopkins fight. And with good reason. I do too and it seems pretty clear. Even more clear, however, is that Kovalev is not lineal.
I think lineal is outdated and overrated at the moment, because due to politics it is even less of an indicator of the "best" than it once was. There are no mandatories to the "lineal" champ and no way to get a shot at one other than being expected to lose, or a far more popular fighter able to bring insane money to the table.