Wlad v Povetkin will be for the undisputed heavyweight lineal title

Not undisputed until he fights Vitali or vitali retires

Nonsense post. Was Shannon Briggs recognized as 'the' champ when he beat George Foreman? No. Yes, yes he was. Then Lennox KO'd Briggs and so forth.

If you are lineal champ you are heavyweight champion of the world which is undisputed thats why its a lineage of heavy weight champion. Unless you're referring to the silly notion that undisputed = having 3 of the 4 belts, which is just a modern day nonsense. Nonsense post. Was Shannon Briggs recognized as 'the' champ when he beat George Foreman? No.

1: It can never be undisputed, when WBC is not among the belts. 2: Wlad already became linear champion when he defeated Ruslan Chagaev. Carry on. This. ^ found this thread quite funny.

Undisputed is dependant on belts which is what he said. Don't worry, douchebag, Wladimir will have the WBC belt before long. You can switch allegiance then...

No it doesn't - who made that rule up? Because the WBO can choose whoever they want to fight for there belt, it doesn't make sense that you have to beat some paper champion to be undisputed. Andre Ward doesn't have to beat Robert Steglitz to be undisputed champ at super middle. You're right he would have to beat the IBF and WBO title holders to be undisputed.

No it doesn't - who made that rule up? Because the WBO can choose whoever they want to fight for there belt, it doesn't make sense that you have to beat some paper champion to be undisputed. Andre Ward doesn't have to beat Robert Steglitz to be undisputed champ at super middle. Floyd was never undisputed welter champ because he wouldn't fight his number one contender, Pacquiou.

Undisputed is dependant on belts which is what he said. No it doesn't - who made that rule up? Because the WBO can choose whoever they want to fight for there belt, it doesn't make sense that you have to beat some paper champion to be undisputed. Andre Ward doesn't have to beat Robert Steglitz to be undisputed champ at super middle.

It isn't modern day nonsense, Undisputed is winning all major titles has been for a very long time. Then you have to ask yourself what undisputed means? For me, it means no one can dispute who the heavyweight champion is. When you have a lineage, where the champ beat the champ or the champ was ranked 1 and beat the next ranked opponent number 2, you have created a champion whose thrown cannot be disputed as he's beat the next best contender or the former champ. What if someone unified all the best whilst Ricky only had the IBO? It's a situation that will likely never occur. The lineal title means disputed as you have to lose in the ring of retire to not be the champ anymore. You can dispute who you think is the best boxer in the division, but lineage means you can never dispute who is champ

If you are lineal champ you are heavyweight champion of the world which is undisputed thats why its a lineage of heavy weight champion. Unless you're referring to the silly notion that undisputed = having 3 of the 4 belts, which is just a modern day nonsense. It isn't modern day nonsense, Undisputed is winning all major titles has been for a very long time.

Undisputed is dependant on belts which is what he said. If you are lineal champ you are heavyweight champion of the world which is undisputed thats why its a lineage of heavy weight champion. Unless you're referring to the silly notion that undisputed = having 3 of the 4 belts, which is just a modern day nonsense.

Lineage isn't dependent on belts. That's the beauty of it. Ricky Hatton was the lineal 140 champ for years and never held the WBC belt. And a lot of boxing fans, analysts and historians don't believe Ruslan champion was the second best ranked heavyweight fighter in the division when Wlad beat him, a lot don't think Haye was either. Undisputed is dependant on belts which is what he said.

If you were trying your best not to give Wlad his due I guess that matters. To me Vitali gives up his number one contender status throughout this whole time because he won't fight number one anyway and Wlad was number one when he came back. So when Wlad fought Chagaev and Haye I look at both those as one beating the rightful number two. If it was one sanctioning body that's what would've happened anyway wouldn't it? Vitali wouldn't fight Wlad and give up his position to challenge and then the next guy would become the top contender? Doesn't matter to me anyway. If you call Haye undisputed at cruiserweight like most sources do you have to call Wlad undisputed too. Haye didn't have the IBF title, Wlad doesn't have the WBC title but three of the four and the Ring title? Even Vitali don't dispute anything. He just has a title.

1: It can never be undisputed, when WBC is not among the belts. 2: Wlad already became linear champion when he defeated Ruslan Chagaev. Carry on. Lineage isn't dependent on belts. That's the beauty of it. Ricky Hatton was the lineal 140 champ for years and never held the WBC belt. And a lot of boxing fans, analysts and historians don't believe Ruslan champion was the second best ranked heavyweight fighter in the division when Wlad beat him, a lot don't think Haye was either.

man I hate to say it...but does the lineal championship even matter anymore? its like doing calculus

Even historians will have to accept Wlad as the lineal champ if he wins as Povetkin will be ranked number 2 as Vitali will have not fought in over a year and have no fight scheduled, thus will lose his ranking and will be unranked at heavyweight. This will mean number 1 and number 2 will be fighting each other to create a lineage even historians will have to accept makes Wlad the legit and lineal champ. 1: It can never be undisputed, when WBC is not among the belts. 2: Wlad already became linear champion when he defeated Ruslan Chagaev. Carry on.