It's funny how all the orgs lead to these meaningless statistics. That being said, Usyk was Undisputed after beating Fury. Lost one belt due to typical boxing BS, and won it back. So he's now been undisputed 2 different times? He didn't actually lose during that time though...... Is the phrase "Usyk is a 2 time undisputed HW champion" accurate or not?
Technically he is but I don't really think so in grand scheme of things. Usyk vacated his belt and the fighter he stopped with a jab and won every round against in Dubois was gifted Usyk's vacated belt and then Usyk won his belt back from beating the same fighter in Dubois again. Usyk has a good resume but I think suggesting that he's a 2 time undisputed Heavyweight champion and that it adds to his legacy is reaching TBH and context needs to be applied here.
For me - it's not. Because this would be the first time in HW history that someone is a 2-time Undisputed HW Champion, without a defeat in their career. But as DP said technically - it is.
1000% accurate. He is doing what he has to do to fight the boxing politics and remain undisputed, something guys like Larry Holmes, Wlad Klitschko, and even Jack Demspey never did in much simpler times, when it would have been a lot easier.
Of course he is He had to relinquish his IBF title Dubois won the vacant IBF title beating the #3 ranked and #5 or #6 ranked HWs, both via stoppage, after having stopped the unbeaten Miller prior to that, three impressive wins and performances, the best three fight run of anyone in the last few years at HW outside of Uysk IMO Then a 38.5 y/o Usyk moseyed into Dubois' backyard on a deck stacked against him and proceed to KO the #2 ranked HW in the world, the reigning IBF champ, who was much younger, much bigger, much more powerful KO artist who sported a KO95%, in HL reel fashion to put an end to all the controversy of the first fight and silence all the critics and doubters Now whether Usyk should've been pressured to give up his IBF belt or not is a different question but Dubois didn't do nothing to earn that #2 ranking he went on a very impressive three fight run after losing to Usyk in the first fight and knocking out or stopping AJ, Hrgovic and Miller is impressive no matter how you try and spin it And Usyk was 2 years older by that time and in his late 30s Dubois was the rightful #2 HW and is a savage puncher Let's not forget a prime Lennox Lewis fought Rahman and McCall twice a piece and he went 1-1 vs both, losing via HL reel KO/TKO to both, and they were both smaller or much smaller than him. It's always very risky when you're facing KO artists and big punchers, especially world class ones, let alone ones who are way bigger and younger than you when you're in your late 30s, and Dubois is a bigger puncher than both Rahman and McCall especially when you factor in size and how much bigger than Usyk he is. You're always only one mistake and a split second away from disaster when you do so.
No. There was absolutely no dispute he was the real champion. The crooked and greedy IBF took his belt away and gave it to the very same guy he knocked out with a jab. They set up a bogus fight for the vacant title between two guys Usyk clearly had beaten. Dubois was a paper champion because the IBF wanted to milk some sanctioning fees.
Yes he is, the title legitimately changed hands and he legitimately won it back. Though I can't help but wonder if a lot of people's answers would change if Tyson Fury had done the exact same thing.
This has applied to every fighter, regardless of how they're stripped, defeated or lost the belt. Sounds good on paper but is no more physically impressive than never having lost it. He is 2x undisputed HW.
By the books, he is. If he never beat Dubois again, he would be a one time undisputed champion. Whether he should have been stripped is a different question. It is what it is.