Vitali Klitschko's lineal claim and Chris Byrd issue according to The Ring

Number 1 v number 2 being a tradition earlier then this is not a thing. Convuluted tournaments and eliminators were how new lineages got established. 1>3 being for the lineal title being a scandal because number 2 wasn't involved just came out of the blue.

I have a little theory or "hunch".

At this time college football had a number 1 v number 2 based system called the "BCS". And this created lots of drama over who would get those spots. This drama often generated more interest then the games themselves. Specific to 2003 you had the number 3 team be considered the national champs by some people because 2 beat 1 and people had 3 ranked ahead of 2. So maybe this was a way to spark interest in who deserved to fight for the title by invoking a scenario sports fans had shown interest in. For what at the time was a struggling print magazine what better way to sell magazines then to manufacture controversy that people hungered for.

Looking at your post the way the Ring is discussing this issue seems lifted from one of those college football shows in which "avenged losses" and "Head to Head" were very prominent themes. And seeing the era this happened in it makes you wonder how these ideas got into their heads.

 

I think it's because Byrd simply won the fight on a shoulder injury, and if there was a rematch unless Vitali hurt himself again, he would have won. Also back then there really was no big interest for a rematch because Byrd won on a fluke.

 

Exactly.

 

Who cares that he only landed 8 more punches? He won almost every round. I forget what the scorecards were, but Byrd needed multiple knockdowns (which he definitely isn't going to get against Vitali) to win the fight.

 

Historically there have been a number of heavyweight title claims for a vacant title, and whether or not they have put down roots usually depends upon public perception.

Many people regarded Peter Maher as being the champion after Jim Corbett retired. He then lost the title claim to Bob Fitzsimmons, who lost it to Tom Sharkey by a highly criticized DQ. After that the claim lost all credibility, and there was little doubt that the winner of Corbett Fitzsimmons was going to be recognized as the new champion.

After Jim Jeffries retired Marvin Hart was matched against Jack Root for the vacant title, and this was greatly criticized at the time. Hart lost to Tommy Burns, and while Burns was not a highly regarded champion, his high level of activity seems to have shored up the title claim, to the extent that it stood the test of time, where the Maher title claim didn't.

After Max Schmeling won the title by DQ, it would be fair to say that his status as champion was precarious. His decision to take the highly ranked Young Stribling as his first title challenger seems to have done a lot to shore it up.

So where does Vitally fit into all this?

Personally I was willing to entertain his title claim, if it became widely accepted.

He probably didn't do himself any favors by taking Danny Williams as his next and only challenger before he retired.

He probably needed to take prompt action to shore up his title claim, and he didn't until it was too late.

 

Yup.

What confuses me is people getting upset because 1v3 fought for the lineal title and 2 was omitted. In any other era 1v3 is a very strong title matchup for the start of a new lineage.

It just came out of the blue and I can see a motivation or inspiration these Ring people might have had for that.

 

To take a recent example, reactions to Daniel Dubois claim on the IBF title are instructive.

When he was awarded the title outside the ring, people wee understandably very critical.

Then after he demolished Anthony Joshua, people were like "OK Dubois is a real champion after all", even though it made literally no difference to the validity of the claim.

We see the same thinking playing out with the title claims of Maher, Hart, Schmeling and of course Klitschko himself.

 

Dubois won his title by beating Hrgovic for an interim title. Then got promoted. He won that in the ring. Promotions seldom happen as the result of a fight they happen as the result of politics. Thats just the way it works.

I think theres two different meaning of "real champion"

Lineal claim

And "this guys the real deal" he might beat the lineal champ or beat the lineal champ in a rematch.

Dubois had a tiny lineal claim due to the foul thing.

 

No way should the Sanders-Vitali winner have been Lineal to the fans. The Ring can do what they want with their magazine ofcourse. Sanders has an argument for being a top 3 HW off his Wlad win, which looked worse after Brewster repeated the feat before Vitali-Sanders.

Vitali's claim to be top 5 is being talented and looking good in a loss to Lennox Lewis. His best wins are Kirk Johnson and Larry Donald. They are the worst wins of any of the top active boxers

Ruiz beat Kirk Johnson first. Ruiz had beaten Holyfield, Kirk Johnson, Rahman but lost to Jones Jr. He was still WBA champion when this fight took place. He's nowhere near top 3 on wins.

Byrd beat Holyfield, Tua, Vitali but lost to Wlad. And before anyone pretends the Vitali fight wasn't real, he was making Vitali miss and making him pay and he'd been walking Vitali down for several rounds before the stoppage.

There's also the fact Rahman beat Sanders emphatically but lost to Holyfield and Ruiz.

The other problem was Don King, kept Byrd, Ruiz in house so unifications were very hard to make with him milking them.

 

Those cards were filled out 2 weeks in advance because it was hosted in partisan Germany. Byrd was making him miss and making him pay and walking him down and beating him up towards the time Vitali quit.