To be honest, I can't think of many but there is one that stands out and it ALWAYS irritates me. It's when people refer to Lennox Lewis, Evander Holyfield or James 'Buster' Douglas as 'former undisputed world heavyweight champions'. The fact is that none of them were ever undisputed world heavyweight champions. I've had discussions about this with other boxing fans who focus on the perceived importance of the world boxing authorities rather than what is really important - the definition of the word 'undisputed'. The last undisputed heavyweight champion of the world was Mike Tyson in 1989 before the arrival of the WBO. That is a fact. Some may (with justification) regard the WBO as being an unimportant organisation in its early days (although I'm sure Chris Eubank would disagree) but unless all the world boxing authorities recognise the same person as champion then there is no undisputed champion in that division and that is another simple fact. And with the introduction of further organisations in recent years, the likelihood of there being an undisputed heavyweight champion is looking pretty slim. It will be interesting to see how many people come back at me and tell me I'm wrong for stating a fact and not an opinion.
Just because a fighter avenges a loss he was expected to win that doesn't mean that he would automatically win the first bout fighting the same way he did in the rematch. For example Holyfield/Bowe, the outcome of rematches is affected just as much by how your opponent fights in the return bout.
That's very true but it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this thread... That's another simple fact.
Biggest misconceptions in boxing? Oh boy. How about half the people who cover it are far from experts.
You are right in the literal sense but you know as well as I do they were the true champs of the division during their reign.
Then there has never been an Undisputed champion, as a challenger is by definition disputing their claim, thus...
Fair point, how could Tyson be the undisputed champ when he was defeated by someone disputing that claim?
Undisputed has, like many other terms, a different meaning in boxing, it is not meant to be taken literally, it is an abstraction, thus the likes of Holyfield and Lewis as well as Iron Mike can be undisputed champions. And that is a fact, which again is another abstraction in this sport!
What you've just said is another misconception. A fighter may claim to be the real champion or the best in the world but has to prove it in the ring first. In any case, it's the boxing authorities who officially recognise champions not the fighters themselves.
Undisputed does not have a different meaning in boxing. People recognising someone as being the rightful champion is not the same as being the undisputed champion.
Because he was recognised by the boxing authorities as champion and would continue to be recognised until he is defeated in a title fight or retires.
