Definition of undisputed champ

Recognition as one. Beating the linear champion or other top contenders if absent.

PS

AND beating other top contenders as they arise.

 

Due to general public believe that Miranda is better than AA.

 

he's obviously not linear but i consider him "THE" hw champ. Peter, Chagaev are just the top contenders imo. so yeah, he's undisputed til he gets beat. i think it's dangerous to have a criteria to say someone is undisputed. today, boxing is too complicated and fragmented. u have to look at each case individually and make a judgement based on the facts. The Ring fails to understand this and needs to get with the times. :nod

peter is better technically but i think he is damaged goods at this point. he does not look stable on his feet. easy mark for wlad at this pt. remember, he was undefeated and in great shape when they first met.

chagaev could easily ask for an exemption to fight wlad next. the wba correctly rejected his pathetic choice of krasniqi but they would allow wlad-chagaev as stated by wba rules. so if wlad fights his mandatory next, it's pretty obvious who didnt want to unify. so if a guy refuses to fight wlad and holds the belt hostage, how do u expect wlad to fight him?

 

You just don't like the idea that PBF is undisputed WW champion simply because he beaten lineal champion. But bringing ABC bodies into equation is MUCH worse. All funs have been realising meaningless of ABCs, now you try to ride dead horse again.

 

IMO, the Lineal Champ should be universally recognized as the Champion in his division (though he is not always the best).

 

general belief does not trump results. whether or not people believe that miranda is better than aa. the fact is aa won the fight.

 

at 115 lbs. we have montiel (wbo), mijares (wbc), munoz (wba) and perez (ibf). montiel, mijares have good claims to being champ after beating several ranked opponents (castillo, arce, kawashima, gorres etc...), hence their titles hold more value. munoz has a poor claim to being champ (has beat few top 10 ranked opponents), therefire imo his wba title holds little value (same case as sturm at 160). perez is in the same boat as munoz. now montiel and castillo are fighting for a "unification" some time this year, so imo the winner of that fight becomes "champ" while holding only 2 titles. now lets say munoz beat montiel before mijares does. i'd say his claim gets stronger, but not strong enough to be the "Champ" as mijares (guy with stronger claim) is still around. cluster **** of a definition i know, but this is what we get with ABC madness.

 

sorry to tell you pbf is not undisputed.

 

this is further convoluted by the fact that lineage is often destroyed. such as in the case of the champ vacating.

 

The fact 3 judges managed to score the result needed with help of absolutely prejudicial referee is weak argument for consideration Miranda worse than AA.

This is a perfect example how bringinig the gangster bureaucrats into equation makes no good at all. You doubt Pavlik's status due to 'champ' who's legacy is questionable if not absent at all. His legacy was questionable from the very beginning:

1. The champ was stripped
2. WW who was IBF#1 didn't fight for the championship, Kingsley Ikeke (iiii-he-he, he-he-he) fought unstead.
3. Finally bogus win over Miranda.

 

i hate this i idea. so when briggs was linear, he was the man :-(

lennox showed what that title meant :yep

the best imo is the one who beats the best competition and does it in dominant fashion regardless if he holds all or any of the belts. boxing politics has made them inconsequential, including "The Ring"

 

definitely. the idea that briggs was once the one time hvy. weight champ still gets me laughing.

 

What would make him undisputed: win over Cotto OR IBF and WBA titles? Consider Cotto stripped and Hatton gets it.