Who is the definitive HW champion today?

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
<o></o>
I wasn't ignoring every point you made. I'll go into that at the bottom of this post.<o></o>
<o></o>

<o></o>
<o></o>
Lineage doesn't end with retirement. Its relevance may, can, and usually does dissipate with time (pryor, harry simon), but a lineal claim is what it is: Sometimes very relevant; sometimes far less so.<o></o>
<o></o>

<o></o>
<o></o>
This just isn't true. I'll explain below, but there is a lot more going on than a simple 1+2 = 3 argument. In large part because we are discussing a definitive claim and not a best claim.<o></o>
<o></o>
definitive = serving to decide or settle finally; conclusive<o></o>
<o></o>

Not sure why sportswriters would be any better to make the call than a bunch of fans. Regardless, this is something you could do far easier than me.

<o></o>
<o></o>

I have, but to recap:
Points you've made:
#14 But in terms if title lineage, Wlad is the champ (and it's not open for debate).
#14 Plus he's beaten the better competition (just not in as impressive fashion)

mY points to counter this:
#25 Lennox had the lineal claim. It was not passed along to anyone. His last fight was the win over Vitali (6/21/03)
#25 Other claims to the heavyweight title existed alongside Lennox's, namely Byrd (won vacant IBF title over Holyfield 12/14/02)
and Wlad (won WBO title from Byrd 10/14/00, who won it from Vitali 4/1/00)
#25 But Wlad lost his claim to Sanders 3/8/03

(so doing the boxrec, Wlad did not have a title when Lewis lost his title and had no definitive claim to anything at the time Lennox beat Vitali. Then Wlad lost to Brewster for the Sanders-vacated WBO crown on 4/10/04; Wlad finally gets a piece of the crown on 4/22/06 by beating Byrd again)

#31 Then I got into the ducking by Lennox re Byrd and perhaps Ruiz

#37 You disagreed vehemently re Lennox ducking Byrd.

#56 replying to someone else concerning Lennox and his retiring with the best claim, I said "Until the belts are all reunited, you have to look at the whole picture...and Vitali/Byrd/Wlad/Sanders is all part of that picture."

#88 and #89 and #98 The merits of calling what Lennox did in not fighting Byrd or Ruiz "ducking". I pointed out that 'ducking' can simply mean 'avoiding', but you are adamant that Lewis didn't duck Byrd since there was no demand for the fight, a financial justification for taking another fight, and no suggestion that either of these opponents was a legitimate threat to Lennox.


I think it is mostly irrelevant to determining who is the 'definitive' champ, so for purposes of the discussion, let's just say Lennox did not duck anyone.

#106, #108, #125 I go into ducking and cite some examples that get us off track. You disagreed with the examples. I concede they weren't ducking.

#125, #127 I ask how you can dismiss Byrd so much on one hand without making Wlad's (2nd) win over him a cornerstone of your position that Wlad is the definitive champ. You argue that Wlad's win over the highest rated available challenger (Chagaev) on 6/20/09 established when Wlad's definitive lineal reign began. You also argue that the title belts only matter for the fighters who need them.

I infer from this last point that you believe Wlad doesn't need them to establish his claim.

#128 You go into the wins that Wlad has had and compare them to Vitali's.

#129 I point out that Vitali had similarly beaten a top 3 (non-Klitschko) when he was the top rated guy--once over Sanders (4/24/04) (if you ignore Byrd at #2) and once again when he came back from retirement and beat Peter (10/11/08) who was rated #2 behind Wlad.

I also ask for a poll since neither of us in convincing the other.

#133 You explain why you dismiss Vitali's win over Sanders (because Byrd was in-between) and you dismiss Vitali's win over Peter because Wlad, Chagaev, and maybe Povetkin were in-between.

Were Chagaev and Povetkin inbetween? I thought someone else claimed Peter was ranked right behind Wlad at #2 when Vitali fought him. Is that not correct?

#136 I explain what I consider to be the strongest lineal claim...Vitali/Byrd/Wlad/Sanders/Vitali. A chain that is still unbroken by a loss. However, I concede it is not a definitive claim because 'of all the strong arguments for Wlad'.

#137 and #142 steve_dave and you argue that a four year retirement ended any claim to the title that Vitali had. You even claim it ended the day he retired.

I simply disagree with this position. I think lineal titles are revived upon unretiring. It mucks up a definitive claim very much, but it revives a solid lineal claim when it happens (Ali).

At this point, the poll indicates 8 say no definitive champ, 1 says Vitali, and 4 say Wlad.

 

I stand corrected on Vitali-Peter. Going by Ring rankings, I didn't realize they had Peter rated so high (though perhaps another reason to not take them seriously). Boxingscene had Chagaev and Povetkin ranked higher at the time, but since Ring is what you began with, you are correct that he was highest-rated non-Klitschko at the time.

I still disagree on the retirement thing, though. Once you sever all ties, you lose whatever claims you had. It's different from a fighter retiring five minutes after a fight and then returning six months later. Vitali was inactive for almost a year. I mean for that, we would still have to regard Lennox Lewis as the champ, just incase he makes a comeback this year. At some point, you have to move on. If not in the ring, then retirement, extended delay is good enough for me.

Now, had Wlad not done anything at all during that time, I can see the case for his not being considered, and I'm still fine with the stance of no definitive HW leader today. I don't have to agree with it in order to accept it. But I thought Wlad's run following Vitali's 4-year absence - which includes a win over the guy Vitali beat in his comeback, and also a win over Byrd - was enough to surpass his brother, and the win over Chagaev clinching his position, given the situation that Wlad and Vitali will never fight each other.

The reason I mentioned the sportswriters thing, was for the sake of just polling a larger group. Having 13 people respond to a poll is hardly a definitive take one way or the other (though it is in line w/ FB's activity). That was my only point, that we just need more feedback. But again, the indicated trend that there is no definitive HW champ is fine with me, regardless of whether or not I agree with it.