Is having an Undisputed HW Champ realistic?

[crusader]

undisputed in boxing doesn't follow the dictionary definition, it simply means one man holding all the recognised belts (in this case 4), it doesn't mean any more or less than that.

This is what I generally take it to mean when applied to boxing. I consider unified champ to mean someone who has more than one, but not all, of the major titles, while someone with all 4 is the undisputed champ (which is why Haye was never undisputed CW champ IMO). That doesn't mean that someone must have all the belts to be the clear #1.

[Horse]

This is what I generally take it to mean when applied to boxing. I take unified champ to mean someone who has more than one. but not all, of the major titles, while someone with all 4 is the undisputed champ (which is why Haye was never undisputed CW champ IMO). That doesn't mean that someone can't be the clear #1 unless they have all the belts.

It's essentially a pointless title if they have to hold all four of the titles, as it hardly ever happens.

Only two guys have done it and it isn't really that big of a deal for most people if a guy has four belts instead of just three of them.

If a boxer has got to hold all 4 belts to be the undisputed champion then it's not a title worth talking about.

[crusader]

Ya, it doesn't happen often, but when it does it's been customary (at least in Canada and the US) to call the person an undisputed champion, and to not call fighters that unless they have all the titles. It's just a semantics thing really, because there are loads of cases where someone is clearly the top guy in their division without holding all belts. It may also be the case that someone has 3 of the 4 titles, and could strengthen their record more by defeating a non-belt holder than by defeating the other titlist.

[littlepug]

This is what I generally take it to mean when applied to boxing. I take unified champ to mean someone who has more than one. but not all, of the major titles, while someone with all 4 is the undisputed champ (which is why Haye was never undisputed CW champ IMO). That doesn't mean that someone can't be the clear #1 unless they have all the belts.

It's essentially a pointless title if they have to hold all four of the titles, as it hardly ever happens.

Only two guys have done it and it isn't really that big of a deal for most people if a guy has four belts instead of just three of them.

If a boxer has got to hold all 4 belts to be the undisputed champion then it's not a title worth talking about.

Its just a subplot Horse, a bit of extra glam to get us all excited, Mayweather was never undisputed champ according to the criteria but there was no doubting that he was undisputedly the no1 guy

[KiwiRider]

I think it is possible.
These belt makers survive on the fees you pay to be ranked and also to have the belt. The icing on the cake is the % they get of the defence purse of each participant.
Wilder and Parker don't bring in big paydays so their % is low.
It makes smart business sense to have the guy who brings in 10 times more money each fight to have your belt, or be fighting for it.
The man is AJ.

[wesshaw1985]

Wilder held the WBC during tysons reign, so he was undisputed

Fury had IBF, WBA, WBO

Wilder had WBC

So whilst fury was the champ, to be undisputed he'd need the final piece, Wilders WBC

By the dictionary definition, Tyson is "unquestionably" "accepted" as the best heavyweight on the planet thus making him the undisputed HW Champ...

[Ossyrules]

Fury had IBF, WBA, WBO

Wilder had WBC

So whilst fury was the champ, to be undisputed he'd need the final piece, Wilders WBC

By the dictionary definition, Tyson is "unquestionably" "accepted" as the best heavyweight on the planet thus making him the undisputed HW Champ...

I'm pretty sure that's not how undisputed in boxing works... or it's not how I understand it anyway

[Horse]

I'm pretty sure that's not how undisputed in boxing works... or it's not how I understand it anyway

It's pretty clear that people are divided on what the definition of undisputed means in boxing.

Is there any point debating this issue any further?

It's unlikely that anyone will change their mind. I know I won't.

[Ossyrules]

I'm pretty sure that's not how undisputed in boxing works... or it's not how I understand it anyway

It's pretty clear that people are divided on what the definition of undisputed means in boxing.

Is there any point debating this issue any further?

It's unlikely that anyone will change their mind. I know I won't.

Fair enough

[littlepug]

Fury had IBF, WBA, WBO

Wilder had WBC

So whilst fury was the champ, to be undisputed he'd need the final piece, Wilders WBC

By the dictionary definition, Tyson is "unquestionably" "accepted" as the best heavyweight on the planet thus making him the undisputed HW Champ...

He would undisputedly be champ but not the undisputed champ !

[Lenny]

I'm pretty sure that's not how undisputed in boxing works... or it's not how I understand it anyway

It's pretty clear that people are divided on what the definition of undisputed means in boxing.

Is there any point debating this issue any further?

It's unlikely that anyone will change their mind. I know I won't.

It's almost like it's being disputed?

[Horse]

It's almost like it's being disputed?

Good observation.

[gilgamesh]

At the moment it's highly unrealistic.

We got one "Champion" who refuses to fight Top 10 ranked opponents.

We got a "Lineal Champion" who'd rather do coke and make retirement/comeback announcements while steadily getting fatter.

Then you got the WBA (Let's dig up the 2 oldest active fossils we can find to put the belt on) title.

...Yeah I don't expect we'll be seeing an Undisputed Heavyweight Champ anytime soon.

[gilgamesh]

Fury had IBF, WBA, WBO

Wilder had WBC

So whilst fury was the champ, to be undisputed he'd need the final piece, Wilders WBC

By the dictionary definition, Tyson is "unquestionably" "accepted" as the best heavyweight on the planet thus making him the undisputed HW Champ...

No he's not. I don't think he'd be among the Top 4 anymore. Too undisciplined.

[asdfjkl]

I think it's possible, they just should fight more often and always fight the biggest risk instead of just another bum. Wilder hasn't fought since his lab was suspended, AJ said he only wants to fight once every 6 months at max, Stiverne, Fury, what are they diveroing? Malik Scott really only fights just enough to stay in the boxrec rankings, Povetkin, max once every 6 months, and even then only if Wilder his lab doesn't make another "mistake".
Wilder could have fought Stiverne ages ago, but just sat down waiting. Then suddenly he acts like he wants to fight someone like he always does when he knows the fight won't happen and in the end he fights a bum anyway while wasting time on purpose.

Funny to read things back...