BoxRec

What should a fighter have to do to be the undisputed champion of their division? Is it beating the linear (or Ring magazine) champion (as Mayweather did), are does a fighter need to clean out the division of all major contenders?

With the current depth of the Welterweight division, beating Mitchell, Judah and Baldomir does not IMO make Mayweather the undisputed champion.

I think each fighter should have to win the four titles separately themselves or at least defend after winning the title against the number one contender of each of the other alphabet bodies.

In the case of Mayweather, for me to recognise him as the undisputed champion, it would mean him defending against Cotto (WBA no.1), Margarito (WBO title) and Cintron (IBF no.1).

I think the use of the word undisputed is used too lightly. Not many would argue on whether he was undisputed or not if he were to beat these three. Far too often you have guys picking and choosing a soft touch without giving more deserved opponents a chance to dispute the championship.

What do others think on it?

Think you are going over the top the other way. For me Mayweather is now the undisputed Welterweight champion.

Why should Mayweather have to defend against a guy brutally exposed in world class to make him undisputed champion?

Kevin Anderson is about as deserving of a shot as Cintron.

Was Hatton not the undisputed champion at Light Welter?

Was Lennox Lewis never undisputed champion, never fought for the WBO title?

For me you've got to beat the lineal champion, or lineal man (in the case when the lineal champion has retired or moved up - which would then be a paritally unified champion).

However, in the case when the lineal champ is considered lucky (Shannon Briggs) or not that great (Baldomir) then he has to beat the generally regarded most skilled opporater in the devision.

I didn't considered Lewis undisputed untill he beat Holyfield..... Lewis beat the lineal champion (Briggs) Holyfield had beaten the lineal man (partially unified champ Tyson). For Holyfield, Lewis was the most skilled opportator in the devision and vice versa.


However, Mayweather beat the fighter whom I consider the most skilled in the devision before beating the lineal champion.... so he has done it IMO.

Hatton did it too, cause Tszyu had the linealage and was a great champion. Even if the WBO has never been in the pocession of Tszyu.

I agree if Mayweather beat Margarito it would sound a bit ridiculous to have him need to prove himself against Cintron - a guy Margarito beat easily. I don't know who else deserves a number one ranking - maybe Hatton? But if he's moving down again there's no point. I think Cintrons wins since Margarito have been impressive - I suppose you could throw Mosley into the mix.

As for what you said about Judah, I'd have to disagree. 6 fights at Welter before he fought Mayweather and his record was 4-2, with the wins coming against an ancient Rafael Pineda (on split decision), Wayne Martell (Who?), the featherlike hitting Spinks (at the second attempt), and Cosme Rivera (who came in with a record of 28-7-2). Had hardly proved himself as the elite fighter of the division.

johnswan1 wrote:I agree if Mayweather beat Margarito it would sound a bit ridiculous to have him need to prove himself against Cintron - a guy Margarito beat easily. I don't know who else deserves a number one ranking - maybe Hatton? But if he's moving down again there's no point. I think Cintrons wins since Margarito have been impressive - I suppose you could throw Mosley into the mix.

As for what you said about Judah, I'd have to disagree. 6 fights at Welter before he fought Mayweather and his record was 4-2, with the wins coming against an ancient Rafael Pineda (on split decision), Wayne Martell (Who?), the featherlike hitting Spinks (at the second attempt), and Cosme Rivera (who came in with a record of 28-7-2). Had hardly proved himself as the elite fighter of the division.

I can see what your saying, especially regarding Judah although I disagree (I think he was commonly thought of as "the man" before he lost to Baldomir).

I do think your whole basing it entirely on the four sanctioning bodies is what it going over the top. If Joe Calzaghe moves up, does Mikkel Kessler really have to prove himself vs Robert Steiglitz? Steiglitz is undefeated, but not very good... he stands no chance.

Similarly if Calzaghe moved up a few years ago.... did Ottke have to prove himself over Freeman Barr?

Like I said, did you consider Ricky Hatton to be the undisputed world champion at Welter after he beat Tszyu.

According to your theory, there have only been 3 undisputed champions since 1990. Naseem Hamed was the first (beat all four champions, although the title wasn't on the line all the time), the next was Bernard Hopkins and Jermain Taylor.

Ricardo Lopez, Roy Jones, Mike Tyson (early 1990), Julio Cesar Chavez, Oscar De La Hoya, Tito Trinidad, Kostya Tszyu - never become undisputed champion.

Mayweather, Barrera, Morales, Pacquaio, Hatton didn't even come close.

Undisputed by definition is all 4 major belts (though it could be argued that the WBO should be excluded).
Linear makes more sense anyway. Hatton was linear champ at 140, but was never undisputed.

Taki... wrote:Undisputed by definition is all 4 major belts (though it could be argued that the WBO should be excluded).
Linear makes more sense anyway. Hatton was linear champ at 140, but was never undisputed.

Of course the big debate is then who is the lineal champ when the previous champ retires. Is it partially unified, undisputed, generally consdered next best?

Also why should the WBO be excluded? Why wasn't the IBF ever excluded? Why shouldn't the WBU/IBO/WBF etc be considered.

stujones wrote:

Taki... wrote:Undisputed by definition is all 4 major belts (though it could be argued that the WBO should be excluded).
Linear makes more sense anyway. Hatton was linear champ at 140, but was never undisputed.

Of course the big debate is then who is the lineal champ when the previous champ retires. Is it partially unified, undisputed, generally consdered next best?

Also why should the WBO be excluded? Why wasn't the IBF ever excluded? Why shouldn't the WBU/IBO/WBF etc be considered.

Well the WBO is the newest of the 4 major bodies, and certainly at some weights (HW and MW) was never, until recently, taken very seriously.

After an undisputed titlist retires I'd say the title is pretty much reset.

Taki... wrote:

stujones wrote:

Taki... wrote:Undisputed by definition is all 4 major belts (though it could be argued that the WBO should be excluded).
Linear makes more sense anyway. Hatton was linear champ at 140, but was never undisputed.

Of course the big debate is then who is the lineal champ when the previous champ retires. Is it partially unified, undisputed, generally consdered next best?

Also why should the WBO be excluded? Why wasn't the IBF ever excluded? Why shouldn't the WBU/IBO/WBF etc be considered.

Well the WBO is the newest of the 4 major bodies, and certainly at some weights (HW and MW) was never, until recently, taken very seriously.

After an undisputed titlist retires I'd say the title is pretty much reset.

Sure Nigel Benn and Chris Eubank don't like you Lol.

Sorry to sound predantic, but you say the title is pretty much reset when the champion retires, untill when? Just a question? Is it when we have a completely undisputed (title route) champion.... The WBC/WBA/IBF and maybe WBO champion? Is it when there is a partially unified champion (like Mike Tyson in 1996 had Foreman officially retired), or even when there is a single belt holder but he is universally recognised as the number 1 (such as Vitali Klitchsko post Lewis).

stujones wrote:

Taki... wrote:

stujones wrote: Of course the big debate is then who is the lineal champ when the previous champ retires. Is it partially unified, undisputed, generally consdered next best?

Also why should the WBO be excluded? Why wasn't the IBF ever excluded? Why shouldn't the WBU/IBO/WBF etc be considered.

Well the WBO is the newest of the 4 major bodies, and certainly at some weights (HW and MW) was never, until recently, taken very seriously.

After an undisputed titlist retires I'd say the title is pretty much reset.

Sure Nigel Benn and Chris Eubank don't like you Lol.

Sorry to sound predantic, but you say the title is pretty much reset when the champion retires, untill when? Just a question? Is it when we have a completely undisputed (title route) champion.... The WBC/WBA/IBF and maybe WBO champion? Is it when there is a partially unified champion (like Mike Tyson in 1996 had Foreman officially retired), or even when there is a single belt holder but he is universally recognised as the number 1 (such as Vitali Klitchsko post Lewis).

Its an easy answer: until someone else holds all three (or four) titles at once. Jermain Taylor, for example, was undisputed champion for only a brief moment, but is still linear champion. I also think a fighter can be undisputed #1, without being undisputed champion.
I guess it's all nitpicking really. We all know the difference between A champion and THE champion (Hatton is THE champion at lightwelter, but is not A champion) irrespective of belts.

Taki... wrote: Its an easy answer: until someone else holds all three (or four) titles at once. Jermain Taylor, for example, was undisputed champion for only a brief moment, but is still linear champion. I also think a fighter can be undisputed #1, without being undisputed champion.
I guess it's all nitpicking really. We all know the difference between A champion and THE champion (Hatton is THE champion at lightwelter, but is not A champion) irrespective of belts.

mmmmm.......... Not sure I quite agree, although can see your logic. That means if you go down the 3 title route, that had Ali not made the ill fated comeback vs Holmes, Larry would just be a normal belt holder in the same way as Tate, Weaver, Tubbs, Witherspoon, Coetzee, Page, Thomas, Berbick was.

Had Ali not comeback, Holmes wouldn't have been undisputed or lineal champion.

I think there has to be a way in which you can call a champion "the man" (whether he is a single belt holder, partially unified or whatever) - so that the "linearage" can continue almost straight away... Of course, when Lewis retired their was debate over who was "the man" and I still think the linearage is vacant. One one corner you had the guy who gave Lewis fits and beat the man who beat the heir apparent. On the other hand you had a fighter who lost to a guy who lost to Sanders, but beat Vitali himself.

Its still not clear today, Briggs lost to McCline who lost to Wlad, but Wlad lost to Brewster who lost to Lyakhovich who lost to Briggs.

I do find it hard to consider Briggs a world champion of any description untill last Saturday.... especially when it was a time when Tyson was destroying Seldon and Bruno. Although, yep he was the true lineal champion.