BoxRec

I've read an article on one of Polish sites about Vladimir who has a chance to take all big four titles. However there was a sentence that the last boxer who was considered as an undisputed heavyweight champion was Lennox Lewis who had WBC, WBA and IBF titles because WBO title, which was belonged to Vitali Klitschko, wasn't so valuable then.

What do you think about it? Is it true? The WBO title is more valuable today than it was in the past? Was Lennox Lewis the last undisputed heavyweight champion? I know that a lot of you don't make a big difference between these 4 titles, some of you think about them in a hierarchy (I opened a topic about WBO, WBA, WBC and IBF and I wanted to put the link to it here but... it seems like this topic is gone... I don't see it in my "view your posts" and I don't find it in a search engine and I don't know why) - but have you always thought about them as equal? I think there's no magic wand which can make some titles valuable from the beginning and all federations had to convince people that their titles are important so that was a process. So, in that time WBO wasn't one of the big four? It means that Lennox Lewis can be called "the last undisputed heavyweight champion". Is it really sensible to call boxers "undisputed"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qk7Dper7BNc&t=33m38s
;)

Undisputed is probaby the wrong word because obviously the WBO disputed it. 'Unified' might be a better way of putting it.
As you know, Lewis was the legitimate champion having won the lineal title. During his time he also held the WBC, WBA, IBF, IBO, IBC and RING belts. He made an attempt to gain the WBO belt when he signed to fight Henry Akinwande but the WBO stripped Akinwande before the fight took place.

yes.

Lennox Lewis was definitely the consensus heavyweight champion, and there's no doubt that he was lineal titleholder. I agree, "undisputed" has not been the right term to use for some time now. With so many organizations with fingers in the pie, somebody's disputing it.

Yes

Yes,he was;-);-)

Yes, I'd agree he was.

He was undisputed in the sense that we all knew who the heavyweight champion was.

WBO, IBO, OBI, WBU, UBC, UBB, FBI, CIA.......whatever, if we were going by some organization "disputing" it, there would never have been any undisputed champions. At least not in modern times.

Fans aren't stupid, they know who the champion is when they see him.

^^^^Exactly.

At that time the WBO wasn't on equal footing with the other three like they are now.
Anybody holding the other three back then was considered undisputed champion of that division.

The first time I remember any boxer who had collected the WBC,WBA and IBF belts being referred to as "unified champ" vs "undisputed champ" was when Darchinyan unified them in November 2008.
By that time recognition of the WBO had finally reached level ground with the other three.

There are a few Undisputed Champions in the sport right now, you don't need the 4 Paper organizations to be the True Champion. You just need to beat the man that beat the man.

Sergio Martinez is the Undisputed Middleweight Champion

Adonis Stevenson is the Undisputed Light Heavyweight Champion

Wladimir Klitschko is the Undisputed Heavyweight Champion

I'd say Danny Garcia has established himself as THE Champion at 140 as well.

gilgamesh wrote:There are a few Undisputed Champions in the sport right now, you don't need the 4 Paper organizations to be the True Champion. You just need to beat the man that beat the man.

Sergio Martinez is the Undisputed Middleweight Champion

Adonis Stevenson is the Undisputed Light Heavyweight Champion

Wladimir Klitschko is the Undisputed Heavyweight Champion

I'd say Danny Garcia has established himself as THE Champion at 140 as well.

I'd add Ward at 168, Rigondeaux at 122, and Floyd at 147/154 to those.

Bobbyptsd wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:There are a few Undisputed Champions in the sport right now, you don't need the 4 Paper organizations to be the True Champion. You just need to beat the man that beat the man.

Sergio Martinez is the Undisputed Middleweight Champion

Adonis Stevenson is the Undisputed Light Heavyweight Champion

Wladimir Klitschko is the Undisputed Heavyweight Champion

I'd say Danny Garcia has established himself as THE Champion at 140 as well.

I'd add Ward at 168, Rigondeaux at 122, and Floyd at 147/154 to those.

And I'd agree with you.

considering that mike Tyson held the WBA, IBF & WBC belts in 1989 when the WBO decided to make a belt. they had 2 of the most dominating contenders fight for it's vacant title. Francesco damiani vs johnny du ploy... the WBO is a joke & always will be...

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/b3ICiPoh3QI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

the WBO belt wasn't worth anything then with holders like micheal bent .

stevedoc wrote:the WBO belt wasn't worth anything then with holders like micheal bent .

The WBO have had strong Champions like Joe Calzaghe, Bernard Hopkins & Manny Pacquaio, (I could go on and name a lot more..... But the truth is that their Champions have gave them credibility in all the weights.

The way that you singled out the WBO - anyone could do that to either of "The Big Four" in an attempt to discredit a specifically body... All they have to do is name a Champion who is universally recognised as being weaker than his contemporaries..... And they all have 'em, someone down the line.

As regards to the question, NO I don't consider Lennox to have ever been an Undisputed Heavyweight Champion.

However, I get the impression that you are asking me a differt question, which is:
Was Lennox Lewis ever the recognised Number One Man of the Division?

And the clear answer to that is, YES!

was vitali the linear champ after beating Corrie (who'd beaten wlad) ? they were 1 and 2 at that time

funso banjo baby wrote:was vitali the linear champ after beating Corrie (who'd beaten wlad) ? they were 1 and 2 at that time

The Ring declared Vitali to be champion after the Corrie Sanders fight, but I don't personally think that Vitali's claim was strong enough to be called the linear (or lineal?) successor to Lennox at that point.

Perseus wrote:^^^^Exactly.

At that time the WBO wasn't on equal footing with the other three like they are now.
Anybody holding the other three back then was considered undisputed champion of that division.

The first time I remember any boxer who had collected the WBC,WBA and IBF belts being referred to as "unified champ" vs "undisputed champ" was when Darchinyan unified them in November 2008.
By that time recognition of the WBO had finally reached level ground with the other three.

That is pretty much how I see it. The WBO was not a major title for a long time. Then HBO decided to say it was and most of us sheep fell in line.
You should not retroactively go back and say this guy should have gone after the WBO title. Nor for that matter, should you say someone like Francesco Damiani was a real title champion either.

Crease wrote:

stevedoc wrote:the WBO belt wasn't worth anything then with holders like micheal bent .

The WBO have had strong Champions like Joe Calzaghe, Bernard Hopkins & Manny Pacquaio, (I could go on and name a lot more..... But the truth is that their Champions have gave them credibility in all the weights.

The way that you singled out the WBO - anyone could do that to either of "The Big Four" in an attempt to discredit a specifically body... All they have to do is name a Champion who is universally recognised as being weaker than his contemporaries..... And they all have 'em, someone down the line.

the WBO wasn't on par with the others belts at the time so you are wrong ,look it up

The WBO was of no value at all in 1999, it wasn't considered a major belt. That it is considered a major belt now is astonishing.

While Mike Tyson was on the rampage as undisputed heavyweight champion, WBO champ Francesco Damiani was out in Italy biffing around Daniel Netto. Does that invalidate Mike Tyson's reign?

While Lewis and Holyfield, the two best heavyweights in the world, were fighting for all the belts, WBO champ Herbie Hide, not even one of the 10 best in the world, was clubbing the likes of Damon Reed and Willi Fisher in sports centres.

Are we really suppose to take the WBO seriously?

Lennox didn't have Brien Nielsen's IBC title either. And out in Oz, a 50 year old Joe Bugner was sucking on an oxygen tank, the WBF belt strapped around his flabby waist. The WBU were lurking somewhere.

The big titles were the WBC, IBF and WBA, which Lennox had.
The WBO was a distant 4th.... I mean before Vitali had it in 1999, it was worn around the waist of Herbie Hide! At the time the WBO title was largely contested by European level fighters who were not quite at that world class level (the Klitschkos excluded of course).

And so many journeymen held the likes of the WBF (ahem... Audley Harrison?),WBU, IBC etc.. That they are regarded as paper titles compared to the real world titles that the top level boxers compete for.

So yes Lennox was the undisputed champion.

Bobbyptsd wrote:Yes, I'd agree he was.

He was undisputed in the sense that we all knew who the heavyweight champion was.

WBO, IBO, OBI, WBU, UBC, UBB, FBI, CIA.......whatever, if we were going by some organization "disputing" it, there would never have been any undisputed champions. At least not in modern times.

Fans aren't stupid, they know who the champion is when they see him.

This is the best thing said so far in this thread, and I whole heartedly agree with it.