Will you consider the Wlad-Haye Superfight winner to be "World Heavyweight Champion"?

yes no problem with that. i think wlad is already considered the heavyweight champion.

 

Yes, no *Man* can be determined from Haye vs Wlad, with big VK holding his portion of the title.

 

If the winner of this fight is the world champ, then what is Vitali vs Adamek? Sorry, but an undisputed world champ like Lennox or Tyson needs to have at least the WBC, WBA and IBF, and the consensus must believe they are vastly superior to anyone else in the division. Vitali is too relevant to be ignored in this way. Vitali cannot be considered the Chris Byrd to Haye/Wlad's Lennox Lewis.

 

well wlad already have two of the 4 major belts so it does count for something. he is the most dominant heavy before his brother returned. ideally, wlad must beat both haye and vitali to become the true heavyweight champ.

 

wlad already is the world champ, yes he doesnt hold his brothers title but a 3 quarter belt plus ring mag is good enough for me.

 

According to recent polls WBC and IBF are seen as about the same... maybe still a slight edge for the WBC because of history.
January 2011 poll:
http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=283342
June 2010 poll:
http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=224787

I favor the IBF over the WBC at the moment.
With Sulaiman's tricks and crap as of late (After the Martinez crap he now wants to strip Donaire for not having defended his title for more than 4 months :nut, imagine that... the nerve!)
The WBA belt is diminished to a joke at the moment, we will soon get a joke fight to crown the new WBA Heavyweight Champion Of The World!

 

Very true:smoke

 

exactomundo

 

Things like this are very subjective. To please absolutely everyone, the answer has to be no because a minority now still view vitali as standing in the way of wlad's dominance.

Lineage can be created a lot of ways; unification of all the belts, defeating a retired champion, 1 v 2, 1 v 3 under certain circumstance, winner of a box off tournament.

Did the lineage restart with fitz v sharkey? Did corbett keep the belt during retirement? Did jeffries keep his belt till he lost to johnson? Did root v hart contest the vacant belt? Did the lineage end with tunney? With marciano? With lewis? How valid is a retirement?

The past can not be changed and unless you were around back then it's hard to judge how someone was perceived and whether it was unanimous or not.

Looking at these polls 75% now view wlad as the true champion. The media certainly portray wlad as the champion, vitali accepts wlad's position as champion.

I think it's fair to say that since 06 wlad has been the dominant force and the onus is on vitali if he wants to dispute that.

There is also the contrasting view that vitali was the established champion after lewis (wouldn't anyone here dispute that claim?) Now there could be a view that when vitali came out of retirement he restaked his claim as champion hence the onus was on wlad to challenge vitali's claim.

Everyone has their own viewpoint and usually the answer is found in boxing magazines and how history itself views this period in time.

These things are often messy affairs which is why people then tend to follow "the man that beat the man"

Let me just say this tho, sullivan never faced peter jackson nor godfrey, robinson in beating bell did not beat the consensus number 2 until he fought gavilan in 49. The mw picture got hazy round about the time briscoe lost when fighting for the vacant belt.

The only way to please everybody when the prior champ retires is to unify all the belts, however history shows that is not necessary in creating a new lineage.