Originally posted by saint laurent
Klitschko was universally recognised as the World Heavyweight Champion - honours he received with his vast resume (and wins over the no.2 contender, whoever you thought that was). People across the sport have recognised that sanctioning body, promoter and network politics make it near impossible for an undisputed champion to be crowned, and thus alternative methods for determining the 'champion' had to be used - you'll find networks like HBO referring to lineal champions a lot more in recent times. A lineal champion is far different from a 'lineage' descending from undisputed champions - lineal championships are there to establish the 'man' despite the politics of it all. Not to mention, undisputed champions may not necessary be lineal, look at Roy Jones.
As for your other argument regarding the wider public though, I really don't see the public taking to Wilder as the 'heavyweight champion'. Al Haymon has tried so hard to market him as the HW champion, but from what i've seen, it's only been met with cynicism, as it should be. People are aware of Klitschko, and now Fury. When he actually fights someone, like Povetkin, you may see a drastic change.
Things to remember:
-The WBC championship reflects a top 5 contender at Heavyweight.
-The WBC isn't there to recognise the champion of the world. Its there to recognise the world champion of the WBC.
-You need to provide some evidence for your claim, that the WBC is the most 'prestigious', whilst explaining why the WBA can't claim the same thing.
Comment