BoxRec

Now that Mayweather has retired, I believe there is only one undisputed champion in all of the weight classes (Klitshco). Am I missing a weight class with one guy that is definitely on top? Or do we only have an undisputed division now at the heavyweight division and none in all of the other divisions?

Depends on you criteria.

There are several fighters who hold the lineal title in their division but aren't widely considered the clear No1 (e.g. Adonis Stevenson, Miguel Cotto)

Andre Ward and Rigondeaux must be undisputed in their respective divisions, I would have thought.

Undisputed champion is a one holding 4 major belts. There are none. The closest ones are Wlad and Kovalev.

It's almost 2 years since Ward fought at 168. I don't think that is good enough to be considered super mid undisputed champion.
I'm talking about the commonly acknowledged best, not the technical undisputed.

ikorolev wrote:Undisputed champion is a one holding 4 major belts. There are none. The closest ones are Wlad and Kovalev.

That one definition of it, but as far as I can remember it's only Hopkins and Taylor that have ever held all four. I wonder how long before they add another belt to the list.

can see this descending into a " what does undisputed mean " type of thread !

J-C wrote:

ikorolev wrote:Undisputed champion is a one holding 4 major belts. There are none. The closest ones are Wlad and Kovalev.

That one definition of it, but as far as I can remember it's only Hopkins and Taylor that have ever held all four. I wonder how long before they add another belt to the list.

Thats the ONLY definition of it

littlepug wrote:

J-C wrote:

ikorolev wrote:Undisputed champion is a one holding 4 major belts. There are none. The closest ones are Wlad and Kovalev.

That one definition of it, but as far as I can remember it's only Hopkins and Taylor that have ever held all four. I wonder how long before they add another belt to the list.

Thats the ONLY definition of it

Fair enough, I thought beating the guy who had previously unified the belts would make you undisputed, regardless of if they still held all the belts. But I stand corrected.

Rigo kinda is undisputed at Super bantam

Donaire won WBO then won IBF then beat the WBC champ Nishioka but the belt wasn't on the line maybe as Nishioka didn't have a fight for nearly a year.

He was stripped of the IBF and never given the WBC when he lost to WBA champ Rigo.

Really do think there should just be one champ but the WBA having just one champ in each weight class is a good start.

I think the confusion stems from boxings misuse of the word which differs from the dictionary definition, in boxing terms it just means one holder of all the major belts which could be 1,2,3 or 4 depending on the era and is no indication of lineal, pound for pound or best in the division

ikorolev wrote:Undisputed champion is a one holding 4 major belts. There are none. The closest ones are Wlad and Kovalev.

THANK YOU SOME PEOPLE SHOULD STOP MOVING THE FU..ING GOAL POST'S WHEN IT SUITS THEM LIKE INCLUDING THE IBO AS ONE OF THE 4 MAJOR
GOVERNING BODY OF LEGIT WORLD CHAMPION'S AND INTERIM DOESN'T QUALIFY YOU HAS A WORLD CHAMPION EITHER NOW THE LAST TIME I CHECKED YOU ARE GIVEN THE TAG AS UNDISPUTED WORLD CHAMPION WHEN YOU HOLD ALL 4 LEGIT WORLD TITLE'S AT THE SAME TIME THE WBO DID'NT MAKE THE CUT IN IT'S EARLY DAY'S BACK THEN YOU ONLY HAD TO HOLD THE OTHER 3 TO BE UNDISPUTED WORLD CHAMPION
EVEN MAYWEATHER WAS'NT UNDISPUTED IN ANY WEIGHT CLASS HE BOXED IN..............

ClivePatrickLyons wrote:

ikorolev wrote:Undisputed champion is a one holding 4 major belts. There are none. The closest ones are Wlad and Kovalev.

THANK YOU SOME PEOPLE SHOULD STOP MOVING THE FU..ING GOAL POST'S WHEN IT SUITS THEM LIKE INCLUDING THE IBO AS ONE OF THE 4 MAJOR
GOVERNING BODY OF LEGIT WORLD CHAMPION'S AND INTERIM DOESN'T QUALIFY YOU HAS A WORLD CHAMPION EITHER NOW THE LAST TIME I CHECKED YOU ARE GIVEN THE TAG AS UNDISPUTED WORLD CHAMPION WHEN YOU HOLD ALL 4 LEGIT WORLD TITLE'S AT THE SAME TIME THE WBO DID'NT MAKE THE CUT IN IT'S EARLY DAY'S BACK THEN YOU ONLY HAD TO HOLD THE OTHER 3 TO BE UNDISPUTED WORLD CHAMPION
EVEN MAYWEATHER WAS'NT UNDISPUTED IN ANY WEIGHT CLASS HE BOXED IN..............

I'm still trying to figure out when the WBO became a legit world title.
One day it was a joke and then the next day it was legit.
Hell I remember the same thing with the IBF 30 years ago....What makes a belt legit?

tiny_acres wrote:

ClivePatrickLyons wrote:

ikorolev wrote:Undisputed champion is a one holding 4 major belts. There are none. The closest ones are Wlad and Kovalev.

THANK YOU SOME PEOPLE SHOULD STOP MOVING THE FU..ING GOAL POST'S WHEN IT SUITS THEM LIKE INCLUDING THE IBO AS ONE OF THE 4 MAJOR
GOVERNING BODY OF LEGIT WORLD CHAMPION'S AND INTERIM DOESN'T QUALIFY YOU HAS A WORLD CHAMPION EITHER NOW THE LAST TIME I CHECKED YOU ARE GIVEN THE TAG AS UNDISPUTED WORLD CHAMPION WHEN YOU HOLD ALL 4 LEGIT WORLD TITLE'S AT THE SAME TIME THE WBO DID'NT MAKE THE CUT IN IT'S EARLY DAY'S BACK THEN YOU ONLY HAD TO HOLD THE OTHER 3 TO BE UNDISPUTED WORLD CHAMPION
EVEN MAYWEATHER WAS'NT UNDISPUTED IN ANY WEIGHT CLASS HE BOXED IN..............

I'm still trying to figure out when the WBO became a legit world title.
One day it was a joke and then the next day it was legit.
Hell I remember the same thing with the IBF 30 years ago....What makes a belt legit?

Voting on this forum..

Winning 4 major titles at the same time is close to impossible because of the requirement of each organisation to fulfill mandatory fights from their own list of challengers.

No because it's nearly impossible these days. Kovalev or Stevenson would be the only ones I can see in the future but that looks unlikely. Same as Wlad vs Wilder for various reasons.

There's a female boxer at the moment who holds all of the belts I think, her name escapes me though!

Undisputed is pretty simply owning all four belts. Lineal Champion is basically "the man that beat the man". Sergio Martinez was the lineal Middleweight Champion until Cotto defeated him and now Cotto is the lineal champ even though he never fights at the required Middleweight weight limits but that's another story.

Another example of the confusing state of boxing; Serge Kovalev owns 3 out of the 4 belts at light heavy but Adonis Stevenson is considered the "lineal" champion because he beat Chad Dawson who was lineal champion at the time. Chad Dawson earlier beat lineal champion Bernard Hopkins for the title.

I think it's the sports writers and pundits trying to ignore the multitude of belts in each division. I think it's THEIR way to crown 1 legitimate champion per division which makes sense to me. I do believe in lineal champion idea but it doesn't hold water when guys like Adonis refuse to fight Kovalev and put that title on the line so i think that is one case where Kovalev will soon be considered Lineal Champ without beating the guy that beat the guy. And i agree whole heartedly.

GGG and Wlad. No I don't care what the alphabet groups say.

caldo2025 wrote:Undisputed is pretty simply owning all four belts. Lineal Champion is basically "the man that beat the man". Sergio Martinez was the lineal Middleweight Champion until Cotto defeated him and now Cotto is the lineal champ even though he never fights at the required Middleweight weight limits but that's another story.

Another example of the confusing state of boxing; Serge Kovalev owns 3 out of the 4 belts at light heavy but Adonis Stevenson is considered the "lineal" champion because he beat Chad Dawson who was lineal champion at the time. Chad Dawson earlier beat lineal champion Bernard Hopkins for the title.

I think it's the sports writers and pundits trying to ignore the multitude of belts in each division. I think it's THEIR way to crown 1 legitimate champion per division which makes sense to me. I do believe in lineal champion idea but it doesn't hold water when guys like Adonis refuse to fight Kovalev and put that title on the line so i think that is one case where Kovalev will soon be considered Lineal Champ without beating the guy that beat the guy. And i agree whole heartedly.

\

You can not change Lineal...It is the lineage of the title.You have to beat the Lineal champ.
Or the lineage must be broken to declare a new Lineal

J-C wrote:

ikorolev wrote:Undisputed champion is a one holding 4 major belts. There are none. The closest ones are Wlad and Kovalev.

That one definition of it, but as far as I can remember it's only Hopkins and Taylor that have ever held all four. I wonder how long before they add another belt to the list.

This is a great question.

I've always wanted to know what an alphabet organisation has to do to become considered amongst the elite?

I remember when the WBO first launched & their titles were considered to be a joke; in fact, in some quarters, they weren't even recognised; now they're considered to be one of the belts to have in order to be known as 'undisputed'.

What will be the next alphabet organisation to gain this status & just how many belts is a fighter of the future going to need to be considered 'undisputed'?

I can imagine in about 40 years time that a so-called undisputed champion will need to hire a van to have all his belts driven into the ring because they'll be that many!

Syntax Error wrote:

J-C wrote:

ikorolev wrote:Undisputed champion is a one holding 4 major belts. There are none. The closest ones are Wlad and Kovalev.

That one definition of it, but as far as I can remember it's only Hopkins and Taylor that have ever held all four. I wonder how long before they add another belt to the list.

This is a great question.

I've always wanted to know what an alphabet organisation has to do to become considered amongst the elite?

I remember when the WBO first launched & their titles were considered to be a joke; in fact, in some quarters, they weren't even recognised; now they're considered to be one of the belts to have in order to be known as 'undisputed'.

What will be the next alphabet organisation to gain this status & just how many belts is a fighter of the future going to need to be considered 'undisputed'?

I can imagine in about 40 years time that a so-called undisputed champion will need to hire a van to have all his belts driven into the ring because they'll be that many!

Not if Haymon has his way!

TheWigwam wrote:There's a female boxer at the moment who holds all of the belts I think, her name escapes me though!

Braekhus, who is now chasing an IBO title as well

Whilst not technically the same we do have a WBA/WBC Atomweight title fight coming up, that will unify 2 of the 3 recognised titles at the weight.

If someone holds just 1 belt in their division, and the other 3 titles are currently vacant, can that champion holding just the 1 belt be classed as undisputed? He is after all the only true recognisable world champion in his weight division. There's no other champion for him to be in dispute with.

chad wrote:If someone holds just 1 belt in their division, and the other 3 titles are currently vacant, can that champion holding just the 1 belt be classed as undisputed? He is after all the only true recognisable world champion in his weight division. There's no other champion for him to be in dispute with.

Hmm... interesting idea suppose he sorta would be and also not, so to sum up I don't know but probably not

chad wrote:If someone holds just 1 belt in their division, and the other 3 titles are currently vacant, can that champion holding just the 1 belt be classed as undisputed? He is after all the only true recognisable world champion in his weight division. There's no other champion for him to be in dispute with.

Holy cow!!!! I had to laugh out loud on this.I guess you could say he would be undisputed but it is disputable.

This topic is too funny..I just can not see too many people ever attaining all 4 belts because of politics.