BoxRec

handsofstone wrote:DOES NOT COMPUTE DOES NOT COMPUTE EXTERMINATE EXTERMINATE


I already stated in the OP theres a few fighters regarded as most peoples No1 but i was wondering who the last genuine "undisputed" titlist,nothing about trinkets or alphabet champions,just who was undisputed by the definition of the word

The last i remembered was Taylor and it seems it was him

undisputed
adj
1. not challenged or questioned; accepted: of undisputed importance.

Paper belts have nothing to do with it. Your definition is a perversion of the word.

Horse wrote:undisputed
adj
1. not challenged or questioned; accepted: of undisputed importance.

Paper belts have nothing to do with it. Your definition is a perversion of the word.

Yes it is that definition, but undisputed means the holding of all four sanctioning bodies main title.
As I said somewhat irrelevant considering what the orgs relevance currently is in boxing.

ttornado wrote:Yes it is that definition, but undisputed means the holding of all four sanctioning bodies main title.

I disagree.

Horse wrote:I disagree.

Which is your right, but expect to get this response when discussing undisputed champions.
The weight of boxing history is against your view.

In professional boxing, the undisputed champion of a weight class is a boxer who is recognized as the world champion at that class by each boxing organization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undisputed_champion

I used to think RJJ was undisputed... but never "really" was.

Wasn't Judah undisputed for a short stint at WW?

Don't think he had WBO so no

Horse wrote:

ttornado wrote:Yes it is that definition, but undisputed means the holding of all four sanctioning bodies main title.

I disagree.

I am with Horse on this. I totally understand the standard/legal definition, but the idea that somebody who beat the other belt holders is not "undisputed champ" simply because a slimey alphabet organization decides to give away one of the belts or creates a new one to get extra sanctioning money is silly. In my mind, Wlad cleans up the division, he is undisputed champion, whether the WBC or WBA or whatever later decides to crown somebody else or not. Same with Ward. Abraham isn't any more a claimant to the crown than I am. (OK maybe a little more). Neither is Stiverne.

Yes he is "undisputed" champ in the true definition of the word but not in the way the boxing world defines it and has defined it as such since the days of multiple belts began

ttornado wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote: Vladimir is by consensus the "undisputed" champion because he's held the most belts,

Undisputed means they hold all the belts, four out of four, not three out of four.

Then by that logic, alot of champions who came down the pipe were never "the man".... Larry Holmes didn't hold all the belts, neither did Lennox Lewis... but what seperates them, and the present champion, is that regardless of who holds the trinket belts outside of them is that there is no question in anyone's mind that the man who holds the most belts could rather easily defeat the man holding the one... In this case, I can't think of a single, logical boxing purist who would say with any certainty that Stiverne could defeat Klitschko... I won't even bother bringing up the "super duper" champions like Chagaev, whom Klitschko already dismantled years prior. That's what makes them UNDISPUTED, if not linear by merit.

It dosent make him undisputed it makes him no 1 in his division as I said before undisputed is a term adopted by boxing in an outta context way it don't mean no 1 guy it means you got 4 belts

littlepug wrote:It dosent make him undisputed it makes him no 1 in his division as I said before undisputed is a term adopted by boxing in an outta context way it don't mean no 1 guy it means you got 4 belts

In my view, the RING belt means more and/or is equal to one of the organisation belts. When you have been champion eight years, made 16 plus title defenses, and haven't lost in 10-11 years then you pretty much as the one and only champion. Anyone else holding a belt, may as well just be considered a number one contender. Also, if the two were to fight head to head, everyone knows Klitschko would win--- so its a given. He is the undisputed champion of the world. Too big, too strong, too skilled (at least for this crop of heavyweights).

Truth is, in the most basic sense, there hasn't been a lineal/undisputed champion since Gene Tunney, cus no one ever won it from him (to be the man, gotta beat the man). The title, since then, has just been passed around. However, if we are to go by who has A) the most toys, B) the most wins, C) the longest reign, D) majority opinion, E) level of dominance over opposition... then there is no way around it, Klitschko is undisputed. To say he isn't the heavyweight champion of the world (period) is to go in the face of all logic and to dismiss your senses and accept fantasy rather than reality.

look it don't matter what we think that's the way it is, your fixating too much on the literal meaning of "undisputed" it don't mean the pound for pound best or the lineal champ it just means the titles have been unified that's all

HomicideHenry wrote: Then by that logic, alot of champions who came down the pipe were never "the man".... Larry Holmes didn't hold all the belts, neither did Lennox Lewis... but what seperates them, and the present champion, is that regardless of who holds the trinket belts outside of them is that there is no question in anyone's mind that the man who holds the most belts could rather easily defeat the man holding the one... In this case, I can't think of a single, logical boxing purist who would say with any certainty that Stiverne could defeat Klitschko... I won't even bother bringing up the "super duper" champions like Chagaev, whom Klitschko already dismantled years prior. That's what makes them UNDISPUTED, if not linear by merit.

You can be the 'the man' but not the undisputed. W.Klitschko is clearly the man, but doesn't hold the WBC belt so isn't the undisputed champion. Chagaev doesn't hold the main WBA title so is irrelevant to this conversation, the regular belt is the secondary title.

Undisputed champion is essentially a marketing term used by the boxing organisations that recognise the others right to sanction title bouts.

Holy cow.... All this over verbiage.

Ward is undoubtedly the #1 guy in his division. But by the technical boxing definition, he is not undisputed. And this cannot be disputed.

Impractical Poster wrote:And this cannot be disputed.

Yes, it can.

Horse wrote:

Impractical Poster wrote:And this cannot be disputed.

Yes, it can.

It's indisputable to attempt to dispute the claim that an undisputed fighter has to acquire all 4 titles to be truly deemed undisputed. Dig?

Impractical Poster wrote:

Horse wrote:Andre Ward is the undisputed champion.

Froch is the IBF champion, and Abraham is the WBO champ.

I believe I know where you're getting at as he beat both of these guys a few years back. However, this still doesn't make Ward Undisputed.

actually there was never a guy Holding 4 titles, even lewis didn't hold the WBO belt (which was not as meaningful back then but still).

I think Holding 3 out of the 4 belts is plenty enough. Ward is(was?) undisputed to me.

fergusg wrote:There should only be one definition of the phrase "undisputed champion", which basically means the holder of all the main belts.

Too many people are becoming passionate about their preferred definition of the phrase.

To settle all arguments, isn’t it fair to say that being the “best fighter in the division” is not necessarily synonymous with being the “undisputed champion” (i.e. Buster Douglas).

So rather than falsely proclaiming fighters like Andre Ward as being the undisputed champs in their weight division, surely it’s better to say that they’re simply the very best boxers in their respective weight classes (when they’re active).

In the era of numerous alphabet titles, the term “undisputed champion” will probably stop being used at some point anyway.

Wiki agrees with you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undisputed_champion

In professional boxing, the undisputed champion of a weight class is a boxer who is recognized as the world champion at that class by each boxing organization.

That only means the main alphabets don't dispute it. Unified is really a better term for it since that's technically what it amounts to. The fans will still decide how much weight they give that, and they can definitely have their own view of who is 'truly' undisputed (even if we're almost as full of sh!t as the alphabets).

Andre Ward to me is the very definition of 'undisputed' (before inactivity at least). He cleaned out his division until there were no CLEAR threats left. He could have given up his belts and it wouldn't have muddied things in the slightest for me.

I would have to say the same is presumably true of Wlad (after Vitali retired) but I don't follow the big guys.

When was it declared what "undisputed" meant in boxing?

Who declared it?

Hi gents,

an example - the last properly-Undisputed champs were:

Heavyweight - Mike Tyson

Cruiserweight - Evander Holyfield

S.Middle - Chong-Pal Park (from memory)

Middleweight - Jermain Taylor



However, we as the fans know that Joe Calzaghe was as-good-as undisputed champ at Super-Middle and only dropped the IBF from his collection due to politics.

Naseem Hamed had beaten everyone else for the 4 major belts at 9st but never held them all at the same time.

Wasn't there a time when Steve Cunningham was IBF Cruiser champ but in recent memory had beaten the other 3 title-belt holders?


There's a big difference in some people's criteria.


Col/T.M.K

T.M.K wrote:Hi gents,

an example - the last properly-Undisputed champs were:

Heavyweight - Mike Tyson

Cruiserweight - Evander Holyfield

S.Middle - Chong-Pal Park (from memory)

Middleweight - Jermain Taylor



However, we as the fans know that Joe Calzaghe was as-good-as undisputed champ at Super-Middle and only dropped the IBF from his collection due to politics.

Naseem Hamed had beaten everyone else for the 4 major belts at 9st but never held them all at the same time.

Wasn't there a time when Steve Cunningham was IBF Cruiser champ but in recent memory had beaten the other 3 title-belt holders?


There's a big difference in some people's criteria.


Col/T.M.K

Taylor - the most disputed undisputed champ in years!

Horse wrote:When was it declared what "undisputed" meant in boxing?

Who declared it?

The Head Honcho.

bloody hell cant believe this thread still going, what is it exactly you guys are not getting ? many posters have explained in plain English and you lot are still banging on about lineal champs and who the no 1 guy is ! undisputed champ is just someone who has unified all the belts and that's it, the true champ is an entirely separate thing unless the dude with the belts just happens to be just that. lets put this to bed now cos I cant think of anyother way to explain it to ya

littlepug wrote:bloody hell cant believe this thread still going, what is it exactly you guys are not getting ? many posters have explained in plain English and you lot are still banging on about lineal champs and who the no 1 guy is ! undisputed champ is just someone who has unified all the belts and that's it, the true champ is an entirely separate thing unless the dude with the belts just happens to be just that. lets put this to bed now cos I cant think of anyother way to explain it to ya

I still disagree with you.