Means simply "without doubt". We talk of lineal titles, alphabet titles and argue who was ever the true champion or the 'greatest' champion of all time. But does anyone ever wonder if there ever really was an UNDISPUTED champion?
What I'm getting at is, only a man who beat every contender and every other champion in the world could really be considered an UNDISPUTED champion, right?
That would mean a champion would have to take on the 'champion' of every country in the world, plus the top contenders for the lineal title, as well as maybe the top guys in those other countries [#1 contenders anyways] as well as other 'alphabet' titlists [wba/ibf/wbc/wbo/wbf/iba etc].
Am I right?
The only man that sticks out in my mind who almost came close to doing this was 'The Little Giant of Hanover' Tommy Burns, who went up against the champions of Great Britain, Ireland, Australia, and did tours in Africa and other continents, as well as facing off against the lineal contenders such as Marvin Hart, who claimed the title after Jefferies retired.
And even still, I can't really say he was an undisputed champion as well, though he fought in the biggest boxing countries in the world, thus making him at least the #1 most recognisable face at HW.
Or let's take it in another direction...
Can you really say that Sugar Ray Robinson is the greatest fighter of all time, and undisputed Welterweight and Middleweight champion, when he didn't face Charley Burley and a few other pivotal contenders who were more than deserving of a title shot?
What really would have happened if Lennox Lewis would have faced Bowe or Tyson earlier on in his career. Would he be considered the undisputed champion, had he have faced them, those were the two men he failed to meet in his prime or at all.
Anyone understand what I mean?
Definition of UNDISPUTED
-
Collins2000
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4175
- Joined: 06 May 2002, 06:13
Re: Definition of UNDISPUTED
IrishRufusMurphy wrote:Means simply "without doubt". We talk of lineal titles, alphabet titles and argue who was ever the true champion or the 'greatest' champion of all time. But does anyone ever wonder if there ever really was an UNDISPUTED champion?
What I'm getting at is, only a man who beat every contender and every other champion in the world could really be considered an UNDISPUTED champion, right?
That would mean a champion would have to take on the 'champion' of every country in the world, plus the top contenders for the lineal title, as well as maybe the top guys in those other countries [#1 contenders anyways] as well as other 'alphabet' titlists [wba/ibf/wbc/wbo/wbf/iba etc].
Am I right?
The only man that sticks out in my mind who almost came close to doing this was 'The Little Giant of Hanover' Tommy Burns, who went up against the champions of Great Britain, Ireland, Australia, and did tours in Africa and other continents, as well as facing off against the lineal contenders such as Marvin Hart, who claimed the title after Jefferies retired.
And even still, I can't really say he was an undisputed champion as well, though he fought in the biggest boxing countries in the world, thus making him at least the #1 most recognisable face at HW.
Or let's take it in another direction...
Can you really say that Sugar Ray Robinson is the greatest fighter of all time, and undisputed Welterweight and Middleweight champion, when he didn't face Charley Burley and a few other pivotal contenders who were more than deserving of a title shot?
What really would have happened if Lennox Lewis would have faced Bowe or Tyson earlier on in his career. Would he be considered the undisputed champion, had he have faced them, those were the two men he failed to meet in his prime or at all.
Anyone understand what I mean?
No.
-
HomicideHenry
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 18722
- Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43
I ain't going to argue the Burley-Robinson 'fight' that could have been, because it's a double-edged sword, cus it could have happened but didn't one way or another, MW or Welter.
But if going by your logic that Burns never even won the lineal HW title, then you would have to disregard Marvin Hart and Burns...and say that the "true" title changed hands when Jack Johnson took on James Jefferies after the latter was 6 years inactive and had to lose 100 pounds.
Still nonetheless, you can't really point fingers at strictly Tommy Burns for not facing the black contenders, alot of fighters didn't...wasn't just Burns. And Burns did beat the champions of Great Britain [the 2nd foremost capitol of boxing] and Ireland and Australia, as well as other world tours.
And of course Burns beat 'title claimant' Marvin Hart, and even Jefferies himself gave Burns recognition as the champion...so here you have Burns beating various champions in other countries, the contenders as well, and Jefferies raises Burns hand as the successor to his crown.
As far as not facing the black contenders of the times, you have to figure that Burns beat Hart, who beat Johnson, and also beat Philadelphia Jack O'Brien, who won Newspaper decisions over Jack Johnson as well...he faced THE best of the black contenders, and lost.
Burns faced the very best of his time, what more could you ask for?
But my question was, is there really a true undisputed champion? Unless someone beats every 'champion' there is out there, no matter how minor the title...how can someone say they are THE undisputed champion?
But if going by your logic that Burns never even won the lineal HW title, then you would have to disregard Marvin Hart and Burns...and say that the "true" title changed hands when Jack Johnson took on James Jefferies after the latter was 6 years inactive and had to lose 100 pounds.
Still nonetheless, you can't really point fingers at strictly Tommy Burns for not facing the black contenders, alot of fighters didn't...wasn't just Burns. And Burns did beat the champions of Great Britain [the 2nd foremost capitol of boxing] and Ireland and Australia, as well as other world tours.
And of course Burns beat 'title claimant' Marvin Hart, and even Jefferies himself gave Burns recognition as the champion...so here you have Burns beating various champions in other countries, the contenders as well, and Jefferies raises Burns hand as the successor to his crown.
As far as not facing the black contenders of the times, you have to figure that Burns beat Hart, who beat Johnson, and also beat Philadelphia Jack O'Brien, who won Newspaper decisions over Jack Johnson as well...he faced THE best of the black contenders, and lost.
Burns faced the very best of his time, what more could you ask for?
But my question was, is there really a true undisputed champion? Unless someone beats every 'champion' there is out there, no matter how minor the title...how can someone say they are THE undisputed champion?
re
>>>Still nonetheless, you can't really point fingers at strictly Tommy Burns for not facing the black contenders, alot of fighters didn't...wasn't just Burns.<<<
So very true! The biggest percentage of white fighters drew the color line, so it's very unfair to point fingers at one, or two fighters when it was common practice amongst most fighters...including Jack Johnson himself after he won the title.
As far as Burns ability...and his claim of heavyweight champion...well he solidified the title pretty good by going around the world...fighting and beating the best of each country, with the exception of three colored heavyweights, so his claim of heavyweight champion was the same as fighters unifying the big three titles of today...being that last lineal champ retired Burns did what a fighter should and fought the best various countries around the world had to offer.
As to his ability...Burns was one of the best small men to ever step in the ring...right up there with Langford...not quite as great as Langford, but not far off and a bout between the two would have been a toss-up.
Burns was a natural middleweight who beat some of the best fighters, 160 thru heavyweight, of his day. Though he failed to face the colored heavyweights of the day, he still managed to do as well against Johnson as Sam Langford did and he most certainly was not destroyed by Johnson...a fighter who get destroyed is usually beat to within an inch of his life and most certainly knocked out...neither was the case with Burns, who was still taking it as well as he had been and would most likely have went the distance without a problem had the police not stopped the fight…Johnson completely dominated the fight, but there was no quit in Burns!
So very true! The biggest percentage of white fighters drew the color line, so it's very unfair to point fingers at one, or two fighters when it was common practice amongst most fighters...including Jack Johnson himself after he won the title.
As far as Burns ability...and his claim of heavyweight champion...well he solidified the title pretty good by going around the world...fighting and beating the best of each country, with the exception of three colored heavyweights, so his claim of heavyweight champion was the same as fighters unifying the big three titles of today...being that last lineal champ retired Burns did what a fighter should and fought the best various countries around the world had to offer.
As to his ability...Burns was one of the best small men to ever step in the ring...right up there with Langford...not quite as great as Langford, but not far off and a bout between the two would have been a toss-up.
Burns was a natural middleweight who beat some of the best fighters, 160 thru heavyweight, of his day. Though he failed to face the colored heavyweights of the day, he still managed to do as well against Johnson as Sam Langford did and he most certainly was not destroyed by Johnson...a fighter who get destroyed is usually beat to within an inch of his life and most certainly knocked out...neither was the case with Burns, who was still taking it as well as he had been and would most likely have went the distance without a problem had the police not stopped the fight…Johnson completely dominated the fight, but there was no quit in Burns!
Re: Definition of UNDISPUTED
IrishRufusMurphy wrote:Means simply "without doubt". We talk of lineal titles, alphabet titles and argue who was ever the true champion or the 'greatest' champion of all time. But does anyone ever wonder if there ever really was an UNDISPUTED champion?
What I'm getting at is, only a man who beat every contender and every other champion in the world could really be considered an UNDISPUTED champion, right?
That would mean a champion would have to take on the 'champion' of every country in the world, plus the top contenders for the lineal title, as well as maybe the top guys in those other countries [#1 contenders anyways] as well as other 'alphabet' titlists [wba/ibf/wbc/wbo/wbf/iba etc].
Am I right?
The only man that sticks out in my mind who almost came close to doing this was 'The Little Giant of Hanover' Tommy Burns, who went up against the champions of Great Britain, Ireland, Australia, and did tours in Africa and other continents, as well as facing off against the lineal contenders such as Marvin Hart, who claimed the title after Jefferies retired.
And even still, I can't really say he was an undisputed champion as well, though he fought in the biggest boxing countries in the world, thus making him at least the #1 most recognisable face at HW.
Or let's take it in another direction...
Can you really say that Sugar Ray Robinson is the greatest fighter of all time, and undisputed Welterweight and Middleweight champion, when he didn't face Charley Burley and a few other pivotal contenders who were more than deserving of a title shot?
What really would have happened if Lennox Lewis would have faced Bowe or Tyson earlier on in his career. Would he be considered the undisputed champion, had he have faced them, those were the two men he failed to meet in his prime or at all.
Anyone understand what I mean?
Well, this 'question' is undisputedly stupid!... I can say that for sure!...
-
HomicideHenry
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 18722
- Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43
For one I never said he was THE undisputed champion...what I said was he was quite possibly the closest thing to an undisputed champion, as he went around the world beating champions all over, Jefferies gave him credit as his successor, and of course faced genuine contenders and/or title claimants.
But no he wasn't undisputed, he never faced the black guys, except for Johnson [whom he lost to] and the HW Johnson was quite possibly the best of all the black fighters---but in my mind, outside of that, for Burns to be genuinely the true undisputed champion, he would of had to have taken the title from Jefferies himself---but he got the next best thing, proving how dominant he was against other countries champions and of course, Jefferies giving him his due.
But really...and I thought of this last night...if going by lineage alone, the true HW champions were John L. Sullivan, James J. Corbett, Bob Fitzsimmons, James J. Jefferies [title vacates] then Jack Johnson [he gets double points cus he also beaten Burns who beat every other countries champions] then Jess Willard, Jack Dempsey, Gene Tunney [title vacates].
And every other man afterward isn't a true champion...just on paper, because they didn't beat the men who beat the man.
But no he wasn't undisputed, he never faced the black guys, except for Johnson [whom he lost to] and the HW Johnson was quite possibly the best of all the black fighters---but in my mind, outside of that, for Burns to be genuinely the true undisputed champion, he would of had to have taken the title from Jefferies himself---but he got the next best thing, proving how dominant he was against other countries champions and of course, Jefferies giving him his due.
But really...and I thought of this last night...if going by lineage alone, the true HW champions were John L. Sullivan, James J. Corbett, Bob Fitzsimmons, James J. Jefferies [title vacates] then Jack Johnson [he gets double points cus he also beaten Burns who beat every other countries champions] then Jess Willard, Jack Dempsey, Gene Tunney [title vacates].
And every other man afterward isn't a true champion...just on paper, because they didn't beat the men who beat the man.
-
HomicideHenry
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 18722
- Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43
Sullivan is considered the first Heavyweight champion, as he pretty much wore a pair of boxing gloves and fought under 3 minute rounds against Dominick McCaffery in Cincinnati, Ohio in what was billed as the Heavyweight Championship of the world under the Marquis of Queensbury rules.
Yes he was the American Bare-knuckle and Gloved champion, but with wins over Charlie Mitchell [the British champion] and various other leading contenders, as well as doing tours in England, you might as well say that Sullivan was the first world champion at Heavyweight.
When he lost to James J. Corbett, yes, it too was proclaimed the World Heavyweight championship---but if you want to say that the Mitchell-Corbett bout was the first "true" world championship fight at HW, then you still have to give the great John L the credit as being the first real champion, as he beat Mitchell prior to Corbett.
Yes he was the American Bare-knuckle and Gloved champion, but with wins over Charlie Mitchell [the British champion] and various other leading contenders, as well as doing tours in England, you might as well say that Sullivan was the first world champion at Heavyweight.
When he lost to James J. Corbett, yes, it too was proclaimed the World Heavyweight championship---but if you want to say that the Mitchell-Corbett bout was the first "true" world championship fight at HW, then you still have to give the great John L the credit as being the first real champion, as he beat Mitchell prior to Corbett.
Sullivan is recognised as the first world champion and has been for over 100 years!... but I suppose as usual you know more than the boxing historians of the past 100 years or so!....Decagon wrote:Sullivan wasn't World Champion; he was American Champion.IrishRufusMurphy wrote:For one I never said he was THE undisputed champion...what I said was he was quite possibly the closest thing to an undisputed champion, as he went around the world beating champions all over, Jefferies gave him credit as his successor, and of course faced genuine contenders and/or title claimants.
But no he wasn't undisputed, he never faced the black guys, except for Johnson [whom he lost to] and the HW Johnson was quite possibly the best of all the black fighters---but in my mind, outside of that, for Burns to be genuinely the true undisputed champion, he would of had to have taken the title from Jefferies himself---but he got the next best thing, proving how dominant he was against other countries champions and of course, Jefferies giving him his due.
But really...and I thought of this last night...if going by lineage alone, the true HW champions were John L. Sullivan, James J. Corbett, Bob Fitzsimmons, James J. Jefferies [title vacates] then Jack Johnson [he gets double points cus he also beaten Burns who beat every other countries champions] then Jess Willard, Jack Dempsey, Gene Tunney [title vacates].
And every other man afterward isn't a true champion...just on paper, because they didn't beat the men who beat the man.
-
robert.snell1
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 1141
- Joined: 16 Oct 2003, 07:56
who
ok who was ? and who states this to be so aside from youselfDecagon wrote:The first champion of the gloved era? Yes. The first World Heavyweight Champion? No.
-
yiddo14
- Heavyweight
In 1870 Jem Mace(champion of England)fought Tom Allen(champion of America).Mace won the fight,and you could say earned the right to be called to first heavyweight champion of the world.
Mace also fought Joe Coburn,in what was billed 'the heavyweight championship of the world'.Unfortunately the first fight was broken up by the police,and the 2nd fight was declared a draw after Mace injured his hand in the 5th round.
http://www.ibhof.com/figg.htm
That link is from the hall of fame about James Figg.It states that he is considered the first Heavyweight champion,and this guy was born before the USA even existed!!! So,it ain't ludicrous to suggest John.L.Sullivan was'nt the first heavyweight champion.According to this link,the fight game originated 40 years before Figg,so it's a bit strange that people recognise Sullivan as the first heavyweight champ,as he did'nt come about until 2 centuries after sports origins took place.
Guys like Figg and Jack Broughton,are the true fathers of boxing,and the first real recognised champs.Sullivan was just a name in a long list of fighters that only came about due to these legends.
Mace also fought Joe Coburn,in what was billed 'the heavyweight championship of the world'.Unfortunately the first fight was broken up by the police,and the 2nd fight was declared a draw after Mace injured his hand in the 5th round.
http://www.ibhof.com/figg.htm
That link is from the hall of fame about James Figg.It states that he is considered the first Heavyweight champion,and this guy was born before the USA even existed!!! So,it ain't ludicrous to suggest John.L.Sullivan was'nt the first heavyweight champion.According to this link,the fight game originated 40 years before Figg,so it's a bit strange that people recognise Sullivan as the first heavyweight champ,as he did'nt come about until 2 centuries after sports origins took place.
Guys like Figg and Jack Broughton,are the true fathers of boxing,and the first real recognised champs.Sullivan was just a name in a long list of fighters that only came about due to these legends.
-
robert.snell1
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 1141
- Joined: 16 Oct 2003, 07:56
book
not much chance of agreement on this but interstiing debate so far. the new book on Sullivan will have a lot to say on this so someone better get one fast..nice plug for the book anyway.
an yes Figg is the father of boxing, not bad with a sword also
an yes Figg is the father of boxing, not bad with a sword also