So, how should we read the Heavyweight lineage?

probably 2

 

THe retired Lewis's belt was fought for by the number one and two (?) in Vitali and Sanders.

Vitali won the fight, and has never lost it, so he is the heir to the throne left vacant by Lewis retiring.

I don't see how Wlad factors into this lineage discussion of the WBC title, which is seen as THE title of the three (four).

THe WBC really symbolizes the lineage that goes back to Ali, Joe Louis, etc. Vitali won it, and hasn't lost more than half a dozen rounds in all his fights defending it.

 

Vitali retired and lost the title. It's as simple as that.

 

1

The Sanders/Vitali fight was for lineage.

If we do 2 then you might as well count Lamont Brewster having a reign for a year since he stopped Wlad.

 

1 for me, vitali won it after beating sanders then vacated it because of retirement, since 2006 wlad is the man.

 

Linear title is still vacant. You have to unify the titles to get back a lineage, but as long as the Klitschkos split them belts, you won´t have lineage.

 

No you dont you have to beat the no1 or 2, Vitali did this, the title was later vacated, then Wlad won it either when he first fought Peter or Chageav, either way it goes Lewis - VK - WK -.....

Only Klitschko haters choose to ignore these facts :-(

 

Cannot agree with you. Lennox was the man and when he retired with a win, the next linear champ has to prove that he is. How did Vitaly had a better claim than Byrd and Ruiz, when he lost to Lennox ?

 

4.



Most logical one imo.

 

Most logical is oviously 3, Lineage ended when Lewis retired and to get a new lineage you have to get the man who unifies the division. Won´t be possible as long as the Klitschkos split them.

 

2 is the more common one, I'd respect this one as well. That's more "The Ring" kinda rules. Wlad has unified nearly everything but the title his brother has.

3 if you're a purist. The others aren't as correct based off of historical classifications.

4 is arguably possible considering their domination. It just takes away from the "one champ" issue.

I'm saying 2. Can't ignore Vitali except for the fact that he's primarily a "paper titlist" considering he's just defending one alpha belt as opposed to unifying them. Povetkin is a sadder version of the paper champ. So many titles.

 

It's debatable if Vitali was the champ when he retired but he did retire so he lost his claim. IMO, Wlad has been THE HW champion since 2009.

* Beat best version of Sam Peter (non-plump) in 2005 who went on to win WBC belt
* Beat #1 HW and IBF titlist Byrd in 2006 (becomes #1 HW)
* Beat WBO titlist Ibragimov in 2008
* Beat #3 HW and WBA titlist Chagaev in 2009 (wins Ring/Linear title and becomes HW Champ)
* Beat #3 HW and WBA titlist Haye in 2011

So I agree with the first option except Wlad's reign began in 2009.