Vitali Klitschko 2004-5 status in your eyes

Hart and Root precede the founding of the The Ring Magazine and universal ratings in general - So, the #1 and #2 Box-Off couldn't have occurred back then. In those days, it was decided by a consensus in the press, viewed as representing the will of the people, as well as an endorsement from the retiring Champ (Jeffries in this case).

The case of Charles is interesting since, in 1949, both Walcott and Charles were the respectively rated #1 and #2 heavyweights. In this case, many people did consider Charles as the Lineal Champ on beating Walcott. But he was crucially not acknowledged as such by the NYSAC, until victory over Louis in 1950. Personally, I think Charles had consensus and it is why the websites - boxrec.com and linealboxingchampion.com - both record 1949 as the beginning of Charles' Lineal Championship reign.

The Ali/Holmes scenario was different because Ali had retired, leaving a vacancy, but then announced his intention to return and meet Holmes not long afterwards. In the meantime, the #1 and #2 heavyweights had not fought, so the Ali/Holmes fight was viewed as a bout that would fill this vacancy.

On Lewis/Vitali - A stoppage on cuts has been a legitimate means of victory for as long as I can remember. Vitali got beaten up and Lewis retired as the Lineal Champ, never to return. I personally do not see how his manner of defeat to Lewis helps a claim to the Lineal Championship. I am also at odds with there having been a consensus on Vitali being the Lineal Champ. I certainly have no recollection of this being the case.

You have mentioned that "a lot of observers agreed at the time". However, without knowing who these onlookers were, how many of them there were and to what extent they carried any influence, it seems unlikely there is a case for Vitali having ever been a legitimate Lineal Champion.

 

@MaccaveliMacc FYI, I've just edited my last post, explaining I hadn't chosen my words carefully enough when explaining the circumstances under which lineage can pass.

Instead of saying "when #1 and #2 fight whilst the lineal title is vacant".

I should have said "when #1 and #2 fight whilst the lineal champion is retired".

The lineal title cannot be vacant. It can only pass from one to another.

 

There's probably different views here, my understanding of the definition of the criteria for lineage to pass is that "universally recognised" is too subjective, and instead, the defined criteria is either when the lineal champion is beaten or the #1 and #2 fight when the lineal champion is retired. That's the objective, defined criteria, by my understanding.

What is perhaps more up for debate, and has changed throughout history, is how to determine who the #1 and #2 are when the lineal champion is retired.

 

Charles won a 4 man tournament. Walcott got a bye because he'd almost beaten the retired Joe Louis. There wasn't a plan to match 1 and 2 that scheme led to Charles and Walcott being 1 and 2 by the time they fought.

 

He was quite possibly the best heavyweight in the world in 2004. But linear status I’m not sure of. I don’t know if anyone in 2004 had a “‘clear “ claim to it just yet.

 

Well, the point is that there was no official, quantitative measure, pre-Ratings / Ring Magazine.

Today, publications have rules and ratings panels behind their published lists, which are transparent (ish).

This type of control is exactly why Vitali's recognition as The Ring Champion was challenged by just about every other publication with an interest in ratings - Quite distinct from a broad, collective opinion from the press (and a nod from the retired Champ, of course).

Not entirely true. Every State but New York recognized Charles as the Champion - even though the Ring did not.

As alluded to already, almost all of the lists I have seen, bar SI's, state 1949-51 for Charles' Lineal Championship reign.

This means that, today, Charles is recognized by most as having been the Lineal Champion after beating Walcott for the title - and this is likely because it is based on the #1 / #2 rule.

 

There are maybe more published listings, but the below provides a good start...

https://www.si.com/boxing/2012/11/12/12lineal-heavyweight-champions

https://www.espn.co.uk/boxing/story...ineal-heavyweight-championship-boxing-history

https://www.linealboxingchampion.co...ght-championship-boxing-heavyweight-champions

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/achamp.htm

https://boxrec.com/wiki/index.php/Lineal_Heavyweight_Champion

 

I would have been willing to entertain the idea if it had gained more popular support.

 

There was no historical basis for 1 and 2 having to fight for a title. None. Nadda. Zilch. No tradition about 1 and 2 needing to fight to decide a new champ.

Charles beat Baksi and Maxim in a tournament organized by the IBC. The reason tournaments or "series of eliminators" were the go to between Root v Hart and Vitali v Sanders is knock as many potential claimants out of the way as possible.

Even Hart had the win in the Johnson eliminator. Harts title was not actually disputed. Burns title was challenged because he was a MW also ran who didn't have a real title defense for awhile. But Hart v Root was much more accepted then Maher v O Donnell had been.

 

The "historical basis" dates back to Sharkey #1 vs Schmeling #2, after Tunney retired.

Schmeling was still recognized even after the NYSAC stripped him over terms concerning the Sharkey rematch.

The IBC wasn't formed until March 1949, so I'm not sure how they promoted an elimination tournament involving fights that precede that date.

Jacobs promoted Charles/Baksi in 1948.

The IBC promoted Walcott/Charles in 1949 (Walcott and Charles were considered the top two contenders at the time).