The Linear Heavyweight Champion.

JimStone · Post by **JimStone** » 12 Feb 2004, 17:36

What's your take on this?

The man who beat the man who beat the man etc etc.

When Marciano retired a new linear era began (obviously because he was undefeated).

Some people are suggesting the fight between Corrie Sanders and Vitali Klitschko is for the linear title, I disagree.

Am I wrong to say Chris Byrd is the closest thing to a linear champ by default:

Rahman beat Lewis
Holyfield beat Rahman
BYRD beat Holyfield

?

What do you think?

REAL_DEAL · Post by **REAL_DEAL** » 12 Feb 2004, 17:39

lewis beat rahman in the rematch

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 12 Feb 2004, 17:49

The argument point is that Vatili lost to Chris Byrd lost to Wlad who lost to Sanders.

What about Roy Jones - he beat the man who beat the man who drew to Lewis. Of course Ruiz susbequently has beaten Rahman.

Its certainly not Vitali - basically, given this day of different sanctioning bodies, I think the "new" lineal champion must hold at least two of the 4 major belts. I think should Vitali beat Sanders and then Byrd he should get the honours. I think two champions must face each other

Its not like the olden times when a fighter could capture that honour by winning the only belt available.

If Lewis has faught his last fight, then I think two of the 4 champions (Byrd, Vitali/Sanders winner, Ruiz or Jones) must face off to get that honour.

JimStone · Post by **JimStone** » 12 Feb 2004, 17:50

Obviously Christopher, that's by I said "by default." Byrd (IMO) is the closest thing to a linear champion we have.

Surely?

JimStone · Post by **JimStone** » 12 Feb 2004, 17:52

stujones wrote:The argument point is that Vatili lost to Chris Byrd lost to Wlad who lost to Sanders.

Perhaps, but Byrd beat Holyfield a few fights after he'd lost to Wlad, so that is cancelled out.

In other words what I'm saying is that when a champion retires with his belts, you should go back to his last loss and trace the default linear champ from there.

Dave1armedTua · Post by **Dave1armedTua** » 12 Feb 2004, 18:15

We have nothing close to a linear champ right now. We won't until someone cleans out the division and starts unifying belts; that will be the closest we have.

And Marciano was the 2nd man to retire with the lineal title. Gene Tunney was the first; so the original era died with him. The lineal title Lewis gave up was actually a 3rd generation.

dondada · Post by **dondada** » 12 Feb 2004, 18:33

Yes, I agree with Dave. We've had it again now for quite a while, it would seem. I think Vitali K could do it...it seems he will fight anyone and the Yanks seem to have adopted him in some way.

hitman_hatton1 · Post by **hitman_hatton1** » 12 Feb 2004, 18:41

if vitali klitschko beats sanders to win the wbc crown and then beats byrd the ibf champ for me thats enuff to become linear champ.

same goes for sanders of course

and byrd

Goz · Post by **Goz** » 13 Feb 2004, 05:10

FlawedGenius wrote: In other words what I'm saying is that when a champion retires with his belts, you should go back to his last loss and trace the default linear champ from there.

Interesting take on it Jimmy, I hadn't thought of it like that before. Not sure I agree though, I think I'm with some of the others in that my own feelings are that the linear Heavyweight championship is currently 'vacant' and there for the taking. Somebody needs to establish themselves as the universally recognised number 1 to claim it I think.

You theory is probably the only 'factual' way to do it though I will concede, all other ways are matters of opinion I guess....

Good thread....

MightyWarrior · Post by **MightyWarrior** » 13 Feb 2004, 07:12

Probably Byrd, which is a depressing thought.

Ring magazine ( when they used to have some clout ) used to award their belt using this theory:
When Vitali beats Sanders he'll be WBC champ - but last time they met, with a "title" on the line, Byrd beat Vitali. So he would be the Ring heavyweight champ.

Chambers · Post by **Chambers** » 13 Feb 2004, 08:26

Wouldn't it be nice to see a box off to decide who is the linear champ
Sanders Vs Vitali then Wlad Vs Byrd and the 2 winners to face each other (providing it is not the 2 Klits).

A nice pipedream

MightyWarrior · Post by **MightyWarrior** » 13 Feb 2004, 08:40

What if.................

the two brothers had a major fall out, ie Wlad catches Vitali "working out" with his girlfriend on the quiet.
They arrange a showdown unification fight to settle the dispute: who wins?

Chambers · Post by **Chambers** » 13 Feb 2004, 08:42

MightyWarrior wrote:What if.................

the two brothers had a major fall out, ie Wlad catches Vitali "working out" with his girlfriend on the quiet.
They arrange a showdown unification fight to settle the dispute: who wins?

A draw :)

steve689 · Post by **steve689** » 13 Feb 2004, 08:54

I would love to see Klitschko V Klitschko but it will never happen, it would certainly be an interesting fight. Originally Wlad was the golden boy until he showed he cannot take a good punch that well and Vitali showed against Lewis he had the heart many thought he lacked against Chris Byrd. I agree with Chambers and go for a draw

Chambers · Post by **Chambers** » 13 Feb 2004, 08:57

steve689 wrote:I would love to see Klitschko V Klitschko but it will never happen, it would certainly be an interesting fight. Originally Wlad was the golden boy until he showed he cannot take a good punch that well and Vitali showed against Lewis he had the heart many thought he lacked against Chris Byrd. I agree with Chambers and go for a draw

I think people are being over critical of Wlads chin, when Sanders hits you you stay hit (18 first round KO's, 5 second round KO's)

steve689 · Post by **steve689** » 13 Feb 2004, 09:14

True, but i think it may have hurt Wlad mentally, he has looked very timid and scared to move in for the kill in his last few fights against guys he would have previously eaten up for breakfast. However as he moves closer back to world class his confidence should improve, i rate both Klitschko's and hope they do well for the sake of this rather ordinary Heavyweight division.

Chambers · Post by **Chambers** » 13 Feb 2004, 10:25

It will be damned annoying if the 2 Klits are clearly #1 and #2 in the world and they won't fight each other. The area of who was linear champ would be very grey

Eric the Viking · Post by **Eric the Viking** » 13 Feb 2004, 11:35

FlawedGenius wrote:In other words what I'm saying is that when a champion retires with his belts, you should go back to his last loss and trace the default linear champ from there.

No, because in this case that would go through Hasim Rahman and then forward to John Ruiz, none of whom deserves it. There's no problem with allowing one lineage to end when a lineal title holder ends his career, and starting a new one once the next guy to unify the consensus major belts comes along. Surely you Brits understand the concept of a royal dying without leaving an heir?

There is a more interesting lineal title scenario that can occur (and has, though AFAIK not in the recent past), but you'll have to wait until my next Monday trivia question on the Current Scene forum to see what it is. ;)

Dave1armedTua · Post by **Dave1armedTua** » 13 Feb 2004, 15:48

when Sanders hits you you stay hit

Tell that to Tubbs and Rahman.

Tantum · Post by **Tantum** » 14 Feb 2004, 00:32

I know I'm not the only one who saw a depressed looking Wlad entering the ring that night... Regardless of the circumstances, that's the truth.

Fighters have bad nights... Lennox Lewis, Evander Holyfield, George Foreman... It just happens.

Don't assume I meant anything by that statement other than Wlad was having a bad night/day/week(Whatever), and don't write him off because of it.

Bennie Blanco · Post by **Bennie Blanco** » 14 Feb 2004, 02:37

There is no linear champ, but for what it's worth I will consider the winner of Corrie Sanders and Vitali Klitschko the real champ. Chris Byrd is lucky to be holding his belt after a pitiful performance against Fres Oquendo in which he did nothing to deserve the win. John Ruiz only has a belt because of label politricks. He should have never had the belt in the first place to lose it to Roy Jones and did nothing to deserve a shot against a pathetic and uninspired Rahman who also did nothing to deserve a title shot going 0-2-1 before the fight.

Vitali took Lennox to the limit and may or may not have won but the fight was close and stopped on a cut. He then proceeded to dispose of Shamu without breaking a sweat. The only fights he ever lost were due to injuries, one of which was a flukish occurence with the shoulder injury against Byrd when he was way ahead and the other came on cut when he was leading the champ on points.

Corrie Sanders may have not been active but his destruction of the little Klitschko is far more impressive a win than Byrd or Ruiz has under their belt in their entire careers and a win over Vitali would make him the top dog as far as I'm concerned.

A new linear champ will be born as soon as someone unifies 2 or 3 of the big 4 belts.

Tantum · Post by **Tantum** » 14 Feb 2004, 18:23

The bottom one was the KO punch.

Eric the Viking · Post by **Eric the Viking** » 16 Feb 2004, 17:13

Tantum wrote:The bottom one was the KO punch.

I guess Corrie just had a bad night, then. ;)

MightyWarrior · Post by **MightyWarrior** » 18 Feb 2004, 00:07

Tantum wrote:I know I'm not the only one who saw a depressed looking Wlad entering the ring that night...

Well maybe, but not as depressed as he looked on his way out of the ring.

MightyWarrior · Post by **MightyWarrior** » 18 Feb 2004, 00:13

Tantum wrote:

I put that loss down to Corrie sporting the wrong type of mustache.
If you'll notice, he hasn't lost since he shaved it off, which I think says a lot.
Sanders ( sans 'tache ) KO 1 Vitali.