WBA Ruiz ain't the REAL Heavyweight championship!!!!

[masterdirector]

I do think Vitali needs to get busy and clean up this division before he can be respected as a strong champion. However, Ezzard Charles WAS considered THE heavyweight champion of the world the moment he won that vacant title from Walcott and therefore Vitali should be recognized as such himself .

Umm....what do Ezzard Charles or Joe Walcott have to do with Klitschko or who is considered the champ now? That was what, 50 years ago? And why Walcott? Why not Louis? That was more significant than Walcott.

That's another thing. Vitali has one of the better claims to the heavyweight throne, I'm not disagreeing, but it is nowhere near as good of a claim as Ezzard Charles' claim was. First, Charles was smaller than Louis and about the same size as everyone else. Klitschko towers over everyone, and weighs more. Klitschko's biggest win is against Chris Byrd. Big difference. I mean, who are the top guys Vitali beat after Byrd? Danny Williams, Corrie Sanders, and umm...well, that's really it. Hell, even give him Kirk Johnson.

I just don't see any solid or fair comparison between Vitali's current heavyweight era and Charles' era, which was undoubtedly deeper.

I really don't agree with calling anybody the REAL heavyweight champ right now. There are so many contradictions and things.

Sadly, Lamon Brewster has about as good of a claim as anybody else. Brewster beat Wladimir. Wladimir beat Byrd. Byrd beat Vitali. Ruiz lost to yet another former middleweight Toney.

[Kid Achilles]

No offense to you but this isn't a difficult concept and neither the size of the fighters nor the depth of their respective eras are a factor. Let me try to break it down for you

1. Joe Louis retired as champion.

2. Ezzard Charles and Joe Walcott fought for his vacated title. Charles won.

3. At that moment, Charles became champion by winning Louis's vacated belt.


Are you with me? Ok. Now let's look at the modern comparison.

1. Lewis retired as champion.

2. Vitali Klitschko and Corrie Sanders fought for his vacated title. Vitali won.

3. At that moment, Vitali became champion by winning Lewis's vacated belt.

See? It's all very simple. Let me do one more for you if you still don't get it.

1. Gene Tunney retired as champion.

2. Max Schmeling and Jack Sharkey fought for his vacated title. Schmeling won, and on a foul at that.

3. At that moment, even though the circumstances ******, Schmeling became champion by winning Tunney's vacated belt.

Notice how even though Schmeling won that fight on a foul he was still considered champion? That's how it works. When an undisputed champion retires, an elimination match is organized to see who is the new champion. Vitali won this match and is now the champion.

It's not rocket science.

[.::|ULTIMATE|::.]

No offense to you but this isn't a difficult concept and neither the size of the fighters nor the depth of their respective eras are a factor. Let me try to break it down for you

1. Joe Louis retired as champion.

2. Ezzard Charles and Joe Walcott fought for his vacated title. Charles won.

3. At that moment, Charles became champion by winning Louis's vacated belt.


Are you with me? Ok. Now let's look at the modern comparison.

1. Lewis retired as champion.

2. Vitali Klitschko and Corrie Sanders fought for his vacated title. Vitali won.

3. At that moment, Vitali became champion by winning Lewis's vacated belt.

See? It's all very simple. Let me do one more for you if you still don't get it.

1. Gene Tunney retired as champion.

2. Max Schmeling and Jack Sharkey fought for his vacated title. Schmeling won, and on a foul at that.

3. At that moment, even though the circumstances ******, Schmeling became champion by winning Tunney's vacated belt.

Notice how even though Schmeling won that fight on a foul he was still considered champion? That's how it works. When an undisputed champion retires, an elimination match is organized to see who is the new champion. Vitali won this match and is now the champion.

It's not rocket science.

No one is saying he is not a champion (WBC), but there are 3 more in that division. He is not THE champion as you said, he is a champion, or better put a title holder.

[.::|ULTIMATE|::.]

Also keep in mind Lewis held the other belts at one point too.. they too were vacated. And now are in the possetion of other men non of which Vitali has beat to really make his claim as THE legitimate, champ.

[TheGreat1]

what about Bryd, didn't he and Holyfield fight for the IBF title that Lewis vacated? if so wouldn't that make Bryd the Champion?

[masterdirector]

Achilles, WTF are you smoking? Charles BEAT Louis too.

Charles was already considered the champ when he fought and beat Walcott the 2nd time. He'd already beat Louis. Joe Louis never beat Ezzard Charles. And Charles wasn't considered champ until he did beat Louis. So its irrelavent because first Lewis beat Vitali. And second, there will NOT be a rematch. Lewis retired, end of story there. So Vitali won't beat the man. He's the WBC man by default.

Its more like John Ruiz getting the WBA title back than ****ing Ezzard Charles. After Ruiz lost to Jones, he got the WBA title back cause Jones went back down to light heavyweight.

Vitali and Corrie Sanders fought the the vacant world title, exactly. And why were they fighting in the first place? Like why was it not Wladimir? Cause Sanders knocked him out. And of course had Wladimir won, it would've been Wladimir fighting for that vacant WBC title. So what is your point? This is nothing like Ezzard Charles.

Charles technically became champion, yes, but he wasn't recognized as the true champion until he did beat Joe Louis.

And WTF? Say he was recognized as champ, it was Joe Walcott! This is Corrie Sanders! Come on man. You're saying that Vitali should be recognized as champ for beating a Buster Douglas type? That's like saying Holyfield was the real world champ when he beat Douglas after Douglas got the upset over Tyson. No, Holyfield wasn't the real champ until he beat someone championship worthy.

There is just something called common sense which must be applied. No matter how anybody tries to slice it, there is just no way you can consider Corrie Sanders a real contender. This isn't an attempt to say **** Klitschkos, put the Klitschkos aside. Its Corrie f'n Sanders. He got an upset over Wladimir. So did Brewster. Nobody, and I mean nobody, should be considered world champion for beating them both on the same night.

You made a bad comparison, get over it.

[masterdirector]

No offense to you but this isn't a difficult concept and neither the size of the fighters nor the depth of their respective eras are a factor. Let me try to break it down for you

Yes, they are factors.

You're trying to back up your fondness for Vitali with nonsense and trying to veil it in comparison to Ezzard Charles-Walcott. You say that "Ezzard Charles WAS considered THE heavyweight champion of the world the moment he won that vacant title from Walcott and therefore Vitali should be recognized as such himself." which is just incorrect. Nobody bought him as THE champion until he beat Louis. That's not saying they wouldn't have eventually even if Louis wouldn't have come out of retirement and Charles had kept beating good fighters.

[KJ]

There are 3 title holders atm (some say 4, if you include the WBO)and no undisputed champion.

You want to be called THE man, become THE undisputed CHAMPION.

The route back into the timeline back to THE champion is broken at the moment they fight for a vacanted belt of the previuos "The champ": since it will be a political pick and/or (time based) chance pick, who will fight for the heavy weight champion (e.g. If I was allowed to fight a dying man with no arms for the vacanted belt of "the champ", I would be THE champion?!).

[masterdirector]

If I was allowed to fight a dying man with no arms for the vacanted belt of "the champ", I would be THE champion?!).

Depends on the man's with no arms defense. If he's flawless and gets hit none, I'd give him those rounds. Knockout would be hard for him to come by, though he could land an Ali phantom punch I guess. He'd have to rely on nothing but phantom punches.

If I fought a man with no arms, I'd work his body first, take his legs away from him. Have to be careful about rushing in, cause you know a no-armed man will have that "accidental" headbutt working better than Holyfield.