BoxRec

My knowledge on the whole undisputed champs is quite vague as whenever i hear the term its referring to champs of yesteryear and with all the titles these days nobody unifies all 4 to technically become undisputed

Wlad's cleary the No1 HW since Vitali retired but seeing as Stiverne holds the WBC,Klitschko isnt technically undisputed,Lewis was when he retired

Most people agknowledge Mayweather No1 in whatever division he happens to be fighting in but having not fought his Pacquiao whose his biggest rival then Floyd surely cant be undisputed even though Manny's lost a couple times recently

The most recent one i can think of is Jermain Taylor at MW but i dont know a lot about Straweight up to Super Fly

Or is my interpretation of "Undisputed" all wrong and theres been loads recently?

The last man to hold the LINEAL (won from man to man) at heavyweight was Lewis... however, Vladimir is by consensus the "undisputed" champion because he's held the most belts, and his reign overall has surpassed Holmes in length...

HomicideHenry wrote:The last man to hold the LINEAL (won from man to man) at heavyweight was Lewis... however, Vladimir is by consensus the "undisputed" champion because he's held the most belts, and his reign overall has surpassed Holmes in length...

Cheers HH what about other divisions,any idea who was most recent?

I believe it was Jermain Taylor via Hopkins.

Andre Ward is the undisputed champion.

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.

Impractical Poster wrote: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.

Does either claim to be the champion?

There is no dispute. No one thinks Froch or Abraham are the true champion.

Neither has a legitimate claim. A belt alone is not enough.

Wladimir is the undisputed champion as well.

Horse wrote:

Impractical Poster wrote: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.

Does either claim to be the champion?

There is no dispute. No one thinks Froch or Abraham are the true champion.

Neither has a legitimate claim. A belt alone is not enough.

Technically, you are incorrect.

Criteria
1920-1963, a boxer who held both the NYSAC and NBA (WBA) titles simultaneously.
1963–1983, a boxer who held both the WBA and WBC titles simultaneously.
1983–2007, a boxer who held the WBA, WBC, and IBF titles simultaneously.
2007–Present, a boxer who holds the WBA, WBC, IBF and WBO titles simultaneously. By February 2007, all four major organisations were recognised by each other.

Impractical Poster wrote:Technically, you are incorrect.

Criteria
1920-1963, a boxer who held both the NYSAC and NBA (WBA) titles simultaneously.
1963–1983, a boxer who held both the WBA and WBC titles simultaneously.
1983–2007, a boxer who held the WBA, WBC, and IBF titles simultaneously.
2007–Present, a boxer who holds the WBA, WBC, IBF and WBO titles simultaneously. By February 2007, all four major organisations were recognised by each other.

I disagree. It's about beating everyone with a legitimate claim.

Horse wrote:

Impractical Poster wrote:Technically, you are incorrect.

Criteria
1920-1963, a boxer who held both the NYSAC and NBA (WBA) titles simultaneously.
1963–1983, a boxer who held both the WBA and WBC titles simultaneously.
1983–2007, a boxer who held the WBA, WBC, and IBF titles simultaneously.
2007–Present, a boxer who holds the WBA, WBC, IBF and WBO titles simultaneously. By February 2007, all four major organisations were recognised by each other.

I disagree. It's about beating everyone with a legitimate claim.

I'm just passing down the rules of what deems a fighter to be legitimately "Undisputed". Of course we can all make our own rules and modify whatever we'd like. But, then they aren't official.

Ward does not hold 2 of the 4 titles universally recognized in order to be deemed an undisputed champion.

I am with you. He is absolutely the best in the division. As is 3G in his division. As is Wlad in his. But they are technically not undisputed champions.

handsofstone wrote:My knowledge on the whole undisputed champs is quite vague as whenever i hear the term its referring to champs of yesteryear and with all the titles these days nobody unifies all 4 to technically become undisputed

Wlad's cleary the No1 HW since Vitali retired but seeing as Stiverne holds the WBC,Klitschko isnt technically undisputed,Lewis was when he retired

Most people agknowledge Mayweather No1 in whatever division he happens to be fighting in but having not fought his Pacquiao whose his biggest rival then Floyd surely cant be undisputed even though Manny's lost a couple times recently

The most recent one i can think of is Jermain Taylor at MW but i dont know a lot about Straweight up to Super Fly

Or is my interpretation of "Undisputed" all wrong and theres been loads recently?

Good point. I have not thought about it recently but it's is clearly what is missing from boxing these days.
Being undisputed takes more than skills, it's when your more than just money. It's a quality that few champions have had.

Impractical Poster wrote:I'm just passing down the rules of what deems a fighter to be legitimately "Undisputed". Of course we can all make our own rules and modify whatever we'd like. But, then they aren't official.

Ward does not hold 2 of the 4 titles universally recognized in order to be deemed an undisputed champion.

I am with you. He is absolutely the best in the division. As is 3G in his division. As is Wlad in his. But they are technically not undisputed champions.

Official? Who decides that? And why should I listen to them?

Horse wrote:

Impractical Poster wrote:I'm just passing down the rules of what deems a fighter to be legitimately "Undisputed". Of course we can all make our own rules and modify whatever we'd like. But, then they aren't official.

Ward does not hold 2 of the 4 titles universally recognized in order to be deemed an undisputed champion.

I am with you. He is absolutely the best in the division. As is 3G in his division. As is Wlad in his. But they are technically not undisputed champions.

Official? Who decides that? And why should I listen to them?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/undisp ... d+champion

Of course you don't have to listen to them. But it's common knowledge within the boxing community what it means.

Anyhow, the OP made it clear what he was talking about. You just feel like going against the grain.

Impractical Poster wrote:

Horse wrote:

Impractical Poster wrote:I'm just passing down the rules of what deems a fighter to be legitimately "Undisputed". Of course we can all make our own rules and modify whatever we'd like. But, then they aren't official.

Ward does not hold 2 of the 4 titles universally recognized in order to be deemed an undisputed champion.

I am with you. He is absolutely the best in the division. As is 3G in his division. As is Wlad in his. But they are technically not undisputed champions.

Official? Who decides that? And why should I listen to them?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/undisp ... d+champion

Of course you don't have to listen to them. But it's common knowledge within the boxing community what it means.

Anyhow, the OP made it clear what he was talking about. You just feel like going against the grain.

Can't believe you had to explain that , being undisputed champ means you hold all the belts nothing more nothing less

littlepug wrote:Can't believe you had to explain that , being undisputed champ means you hold all the belts nothing more nothing less

Only two fighters have done it.

It's nonsense.

Horse wrote:

littlepug wrote:Can't believe you had to explain that , being undisputed champ means you hold all the belts nothing more nothing less

Only two fighters have done it.

It's nonsense.

It is nonsense but i suppose the term "undisputed" is a thing of the past in boxing

Horse wrote:Wladimir is the undisputed champion as well.

Wlad doesn't hold the WBC belt.

Probably more than two, when there was only 2 and then 3 belts available boxers have held both or all 3 which made them undisputed champ

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.

ttornado wrote:Wlad doesn't hold the WBC belt.

Stiverne is not a credible champion. He's arguably not even a top 5 ranked fighter. Pulev has more of a right to claim to be the champion than Stiverne.

An alphabet trinket means nothing without the wins to back up the claim.

Horse wrote:Stiverne is not a credible champion. He's arguably not even a top 5 ranked fighter. Pulev has more of a right to claim to be the champion than Stiverne.

An alphabet trinket means nothing without the wins to back up the claim.

Don't confuse what I'm saying for Stiverne being the man at heavyweight.
Wladimir has proved himself to be the best heavyweight currently fighting by some distance.
But you must simultaneously hold all four belts to called 'the undisputed champion'.
Which makes the term undisputed somewhat irrelevant in boxing today.

Horse wrote:

ttornado wrote:Wlad doesn't hold the WBC belt.

Stiverne is not a credible champion. He's arguably not even a top 5 ranked fighter. Pulev has more of a right to claim to be the champion than Stiverne.

An alphabet trinket means nothing without the wins to back up the claim.

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

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

You should find another word as 'undisputed' has a special meaning in boxing.

Taylor was undisputed champ cause he held all 4 available belts , this has no standing in his being no 1 or not he just holds all the belts, your missenterpreting the term