There seems to be much dispute as to what cosntitues an undisputed champion. I've taken a lot of criticism for my stance on the issue. However, I believe I've come up with a fair standard the most can agree on. Here it goes. To be an undisputed champion a fighter must acheive the following; Hold the WBC/WBA/IBF titles at the same time as well as win the linear title. If a fighter holds the WBC/WBA/IBF all at once and is also the linear champ, he then is considered the undisputed champ. If one or more of his ABC titles is stripped or vacated without the fighter losing, then the fighter maintains his undisputed status. If another fighter beats the undisputed champion, and wins all 3 belts, then he becomes undisputed. If the undisputed champion is stipped or vacates one or more of his ABC titles and another fighter beats him, that fighter will then have the standard reset. This means that this fighter will now have to hold all 3 ABC titles and be the linear champ before they become the undisputed champ. Examples; Lennox Lewis beat Holyfield to unify the WBC/WBA/IBF titles. He was also considered the lineal champ. As a result, he obtained undisputed status. He vacated his WBA title, but still retains his undisputed status. However, if Vitali had beat him, Vitali would not have been undisputed until he won the WBA strap. Zab Judah held the WBC/WBA/IBF belts. When he fought Baldo, only the WBC title was at stake. Although Baldo beat the undisputed champion, because he did not win the WBC/WBA/IBF belts, he is not undisputed. Naseem Hamed beat the WBA fw champion, however the title was not on the line. He also beat the WBO,WBC,and IBF champions. However, because he never held the WBA/WBC/IBF titles at once, he fails to obtain undisputed status. Once again, this a preliminary standard that I thought up. I am open to suggested changes/and or additions.
Under the standard I proposed, no. He never held the WBA/WBC/IBF titles at once. He was asked about this before the Baldo fight, and he was adament that if he beat Baldo that he would not be the undisputed champ but rather just simply the WBC champ.
So Hayes is the Undisputed champ right now and so is Calzaghe right?? And who are the only Undisputed champs then right now???
**** ABC belts. Undisputed: generally agreed upon; not subject to dispute If a Champ is universally recognized, he is Undisputed.
thats biggest misconception about the term 'undisputed'. you dont have to hold all the belts at the same time to be 'undisputed'. undisputed simply means that you are THE champion in your division, and your claim as champ cannot be argued. monzon was stripped of the wbc title for not facing valdez, did that make him any less than the "Undisputed" champion in that division? pavlik is the undisputed champ haye is the undisputed champ calzaghe is the undisputed champ all these guys are THE men to beat in their divisions. they are the undisputed champions in their divisions. these terms were never around during the 70's etc.
just curious.. do you treat the wbo belt in the same level as that of the other 3 orgs? because my impression is that, for a boxer to get the undisputed title status, he has to get hold of these ABC belts. so where does wbo figure in the equation?
Right now, there are technically no undisputed champs. However, the Calzaghe situation I am not too sure about. I think an exception could be made. Haye is not undisputed under my proposed standard.
Please read my entire post. I clearly stated that this is a prelimenary standard. I also stated that an undisputed champ doesn't lose his undisputed status just because he's stripped of a belt.
this is my definition. haye does'nt hold the IBF title, does that make his status as champ any less? nope. his claim as champ at cruiser cannot be argued, that simply what "undiputed" is in a nutshell.