Is Wlad the only "Ring" guy never to win the WBC or WBA championship belts?

[Tommy Boy]

I find it extremely odd how this guy went 57 bouts without gracing the oldest, and most respected belts in the sport. He seems content with facing belt-less Yanks with inflated records like Brock and Austin instead of becoming undisputed. Why is this?

The only time he fought for a WBC belt was in a fictional movie, and that bout was ruled a no contest.

Austin was an IBF mandatory.

[knn]

It still doesnt explain why he chose to go after beltless-bums with inflated records. When you look at the big picture, there is an enormous void from 2000-2010 where the #1 HW never touched a WBC or WBA belt.

But you claim that it's Klitschko's fault while in reality the WBA belt holder (Valuev) was ducking him.

And that he didn't go after the WBC belt is because

• in the early 2000s Vitali lost against Byrd (WBO world title)
• so Wladimir went after Byrd (WBO)
• Vitali decided to go after the WBA belt
• Why not after the WBC belt? Because at the same time Lennox lost the WBC belt to Rahman, wanted the rematch and then the fight against Tyson. Neither Klitschko was on the radar for Lennox.
• Then Wlad lost to Sanders (WBO), Sanders refused to rematch Wlad and hence was stripped of the WBO belt
• Since the plan was always "Two brothers two belts" they decided the following: Wlad matches Brewster for the WBO belt and Vit matches Sanders for the WBC belt.
• Then Wlad loses to Brewster and Vitali retires

So the whole mess is an unfortunate sequence of losses for Lennox (Rahman), Vitali (Byrd + retirement) and Wlad (Sanders, Brewster).

After the Sanders loss it took them approx. 5.5 years to realize their plan "Two bros two belts"