Who Deserves to be World Champ?

This little article by Andy Soltis got my attention recently.

I personally think that the Classical World Championship should be the only world championship. It is preferably a fight between two people. Like a boxer in the ring. Parrying this threat, preparing for that bout.

It will be interesting to see who comes out of Mexico on top to battle Kramnik. In my eyes Kramnik will be the world Champ until he is defeated in a match

This Tournament in Mexico I feel is just a Qualification tournament.

Soltis Argues that whoever wins the Mexico Tournament deserves such status as tal and Smyslov as they only had the championship for one year. But i put to this arguement that they defeated the world champion for the crown. The winner in mexico wouldn't have defeated the World Champ and thus Not be in the same heir as the other world championships although they might be worthy of the title. Another Arguement might be that tournaments have decided the world championship in the past eg. when Alekhine died Botvinnik becasme world champion from a tournament. I would argue that at that point in time there was no champion so a champion could not defend his title. That tournament would have been seen as determining the top player most worthy of the world championship title. Botvinnik proved this as he kept the title and defended and lost and regained the title in matchplay.

Anyhow what does everyone else think?