British Undisputed World Champions

RP that list is far from complete

 

Disagree.

Traditonally the Undisputed was WBC / WBA / IBF - the three main long standing governing bodies.

So Lewis and Holyfield etc - were classed as Undisputed by holding these 3 at the same time.

The WBO Belt came along and was ingnored from the Undisputed Status as it was seen as a paper belt.

WBC / WBA / IBF - Undisputed.

WBO - paper title not worth fighting for.

These days there is so many titles about and the WBO is more recognised that the waters are a bit murkier.

However - traditonally the undisputed champ was one who held all 3 main world titles - WBC / WBA / IBF

So that would include the likes of

Lennox Lewis
Evander Holyfield
Mike Tyson
Roy Jones
Don Curry
Bernard Hopkins
etc

Clearly does not include David Haye as he never held the IBF title.

 

No there wasnt. The WBO didnt come about until around 89. There inagural champ at heavy was Francisco Damiani. The IBF was created in 81 who had Holmes and Hagler as there inaugural champs. If you held the WBA WBC and IBF you were the unified champ. If you were linear and held those 3 belts you were undisputed. Ala Mike Tyson Lennox Lewis Holyfield etc.

 

To this day the WBO is still seen as the lesser of the 4 belts. There mandatorys are garbage and their champs tended to be the weaker of all 4. That said because of these Emeritus and Super champions the belts have been cheapened immensely and have little to no value at all. Other than making the holders some decent money.

 

Holmes, Hagler and Curry. Pretty smart move to get some credibility on the board from the start.

 

True. Although handing the title to fighters was improper. They could have at least had a tourny. The IBF were ridiculous corrupt anyway. It was essentially Don Kings belt and allowed him to control the heavy title much the same he did with the WBA.

 

NYSAC awarded belts after 1963, as did the WAA, the BBB of C and Europe. IBF awarded belts before 1984...

How can you be undisputed champion if you do not have the recognition of everyone? By definition if you for arguments sake hold the WBA, WBC and WBO titles at a weight in 2007, the IBF disputes your claim as they have a different champ, thus your claim is not undisputed...

 

Thats right Scurla.

Cos Tyson was unfied but not undisputed until he beat Spinks.

And Lewis was unfied but not undisputed until he beat Shannon Briggs and Hoyfield.

 

yeah Curry was anointed IBF Champ before the Colin Jones fight.

So Curry was actually defending WBA and IBF titles against Jones.

So Jones fought for all 3 belts of his day - WBC / WBA / IBF.

 

The WBO disputed Tyson's claim.

After beating Briggs, Lewis was hardly an undisputed champion, for staters he had not even met Holyfield.

It makes much more sense just to use the term Generally considered World Champion...

 

No sorry

He wasnt undisputed til he beat Holyfield.

But he won the Linear title from Briggs.

 

Thats a weak claim to make.

Everyone knows the WBO belt is for the Euro level fighters a chance to win a belty and make some money.

Frank Warren specialises in taking average fighters to the WBO route.

If they ever stepped up to the real WBC / WBA / IBF level - they got put in their place.

Calzaghe and Naz being obvious exceptions.

 

But as I stated, it makes Tyson's claim to the title disputed...

Thus Tyson was not Undisputed World Heavyweight Champion, but he was very much the Generally Recognized Heavyweight Champion of the World after beating Spinks, indeed he was the second youngest claimant of that crown.

 

Hamed.

 

would you include Calzaghe seeing as he vacated the IBF?