Who is the definitive HW champion today?

:: Really?

Golota was before Lewis beat Holyfield. Lewis only had the WBC back then.

Lewis took a year off after beating Tyson. He was stripped of the IBF sometime during that span.

 

Yes, but if you have three bullshit titles and all these three bullshit sanctioning bodies demand you to face their #1 bullshit mandatory challenger or else they strip you of their bullshit belt, you have to choose some bullshit over another. Since you can't fight all three at the same time, I can't see how you could classify it as 'ducking' not to mention hold it against the fighter in question

 

Look at it from Ruiz's view. He got 'robbed' against Holyfield, who some (somehow) believe got robbed against Lennox. Then he beats and retains against Holyfield.

What else is a guy supposed to do to get a title shot other than play by the sanctioning body rules? Obviously, there are ways to convince the public rather than the sanctioning body, but Ruiz played fair and square and won a claim to the heavyweight title. A weaker claim than Lennox's, but a claim. And with wins over Evander, Kirk, Rahman, it's not the worst claim ever, it's just not a great one.

 

Sure, but what is Lennox supposed to do other than fight one of his three named contenders, and the one that public most wants to see (which first was Grant, then Tua)? How can he not duck someone? And if I remember it correctly, Lewis signed to fight Ruiz but as the bout fell through he fought Botha as replacement

 

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the question is "Who is the definitive HW Champion today."

And since a bunch of long time boxing fans can't agree, the answer is "There isn't one."

The thread didn't ask who the lineal champ is.

 

Right, but mikE doesn't even know when Lewis fought any of these guys.

 

"Who is the definitive HW champ," is the question. The answer is Wlad. Reading the originators message, it would seen he means to ask who the best HW is --- thats a debate. Who the definitive champ is, while Wlad holds everything and Vitali holds nothing and has beaten consistently poorer opposition, is not.

 

If you place stock in the belts by necessity, mind.

I dont.

 

Ideally, you fight mandatories in the order the sanctioning bodies set forth so you can keep all titles. Especially when it comes to the IBF, that's not always possible, and back then it was even harder, but this is the main reason that the 'super' designation makes sense because it gives champions more time to make mandatory defenses and helps make it more feasible to keep all titles.

Once you play the game of appeasing the public over the sanctioning bodies, you open up the possibility that you lose a belt and someone else starts building a claim against you. For all the retards out there, I'm not saying this isn't a good tradeoff. It can be and often is. But it can, and does, open up your claim of legitimacy to critique.

I don't remember the Ruiz/Lewis bout being signed? gee, steve_dave, you stupid putz with the ironclad memory, enlighten us.

 

Very good opinion and solid rationale. However, others disagree with you. So again, there isn't a definitive HW Champion.

From my perspective, if I was a HW contender and I beat Wlad, I would still feel like I needed to also beat Vitili to be the champion. And I think that really sums up the HW Champion picture.

 

Then, ignoring belts, explain why Wlad is the champ over Vitali and try to make a real argument, please, not the typical 'it is because I say it is' crap.

 

TrplSec,

I have to strongly disagree, though Im starting to see we're approaching this from different angles. You are factoring in who the best boxer is in your opinion, whereas Im looking purely at black and white facts.

People are free to dispute who the best HW is, but you have ZERO claim to the championship until you fight, and beat, the man. You cant have an actual claim to the title based solely on some people thinking youre better than the man. If you want to argue Wlad isnt definitively THE BEST around now, Id disagree but I could understand that.

However, who the champ is? Thats Wlad, as sure as the sky is blue and water's wet. There is no room for debate.

 

But all three set forth a different guy who you are supposed to face before anybody else, or else they strip their title away from you. Surely you must see this problem? In this case a champion has to choose which title to keep, and to make that choice I think 'public demand', as misleading as it can be, is a pretty good basis for your decision.

 

Boy, I could have put money on someone missing that, "BY NECESSITY," comment. Even as I wrote it, I knew it would go unheeded.

 

I disagree that there is "no" room for debate, although I too would pick Wlad. Vitali had achieved a pretty solid universal recognition as the best heavyweight in the world before he retired in 2004. A year later Wlad defeated Byrd for a title and continued to pile up wins, but it is debatable when he won the title (if he did at all) and as Vitali returned and defeated the universally recognized #2 of the division (which was Peter at the time), a solid argument could be made that the title was vacant

 

If a beltholder is put in this position, I think 'public demand' is probably going to be a good basis to make the decision, too. It will depend on the details. However, fighters fight to make money.

I think it often makes perfect sense to ignore someone like Ruiz and lose a speck of legitimatcy (perhaps), but fight a more meaningful and lucrative fight.

But, when you do this and it's not a forced situation, I think it runs a far greater risk of hurting your legitimacy.

 

I read it, but it didn't change anything. You said you don't place stock in the belts, but you somehow arrive at the determination that Wlad is the champ, without a doubt.

Explain why.

 

Come on. In boxing, in the era of splintered titles and multiple alphabet belts, public perception is almost always the only true indication of who the champion is in a particular weight class. There are exceptions where guys have basically unified the important titles, but that's not really the case in the HW division.

If I'm not mistaken, Vitali 'retired' as the WBC Champion, which was a belt he won by beating a guy that had just knocked Wladimir around like a rag doll.

So there is certainly room for debate. I am not saying anyone is right or wrong, but to act like it's black and white is just silly.

 

You make a good point here to be fair. But since Wlad was stopped by Brewster he's returned, pummelled the same Brewster and beaten the hell out of everyone since.

Wlad, beating Haye, puts him over the edge for me.

 

I thought Wlad and Chagaev were considered #1 and #2 by pretty much everyone when they fought?

 

#1 and #3 actually, as Vitali had already returned to the ring

 

Ah, yes.

 

:shit:

 

Correct. Very few insiders know that it was actually Lamon's secret twin brother

 

the twin who fought in their first encounter could actually see. then again we all know Klitschko was drugged in that bout.

 

The point is not whether or not Brewster was as good as he was in the first fight but who was the better at the moment in question (meaning, who deserves to be the champ). Most people saw Wlad as the champ, but some pointed to the fact that Brewster had beaten him. As Wlad proved that he was clearly far superior to Brewster too, there was no more dispute

 

He didn't duck Byrd at all. King literally paid for the title. He paid Lewis cash and bought him a car (I want to say Range Rover) in exchange for Lewis making the title available for Byrd-Holyfield to be for a title. That's the story. Lewis was even at the Byrd-Holyfield press conference as a guest of honor.

Seriously, what ATG heavyweight in his right mind would duck Chris Byrd?!

On Ruiz - Lewis' handlers tried to work out a deal with King where Ruiz would get his shot after Lewis-Grant. Lewis planned to fight three times in 2000 - Grant in April, Ruiz in the summer, Tua in the fall.

Ruiz' team was on board and even knew of this game plan when HBO aired Grant-Golota, knowing full well that it was designed to hype up Lewis-Grant (even though Grant lucked out). That was until they (read: King) decided that he had a much better chance at winning a vacant title than were his chances against Lewis. At that point, once Lewis-Grant was signed, Ruiz' handlers decided to play hardball and enforce his mandatory ranking.

No ducking on either instance, and also no small coincidence that Don King promoted both fighters who wound up contending for vacant titles.

 

Lewis is an ATG now, but back then he was a 7-5 favorite over guys like Akinwande and Golota and a dog (I think) to Holyfield. What you are describing is Lewis selling the IBF title rather than defending it. Not all that different to taking step aside money like he did with Tyson vs Holyfield. Whenever you do that, you open yourself up to technical criticism. And when you never 'make it right' like he could have by later fighting Byrd, you leave yourself open to claims you ducked someone.

I think Lewis ducked Byrd. Not out of fear, but because it made financial sense.

Definition #6 of duck (as a verb)
to avoid or evade (a blow, unpleasant task, etc.); dodge: to duck a hard right; to duck an embarrassing question.

 

Lewis fights with Golota and Akinwade were a good five or six years before any potential bout with Byrd (post-Tyson)

Your timeline is way off.