Definition of undisputed champ

i agree with this.:good

 

About little significancy of titles. If any.

 

I don't know?

I thought we were talking about the definition of an undisputed champion.

Some how a Cotto fan came along and I had to let him know the real.

I alredy made my post on what I believe defines an undisputed champion.

Why is Floyd and Cotto being brought up in this thread when there are plenty of threads about the two.

 

I agree with istmeno --

I guess in the case of Pavlik he's not the undisputed champion.

but as far as Calzaghe and Haye they are the legit undisputed champions of their division.

 

and now i have to diagree with istmeno...imo, fighter A can't be considered undisputed if he doesn't hold all the recognized belts, even if he has previously beaten the current holder of one of the recognized belts. for me, it just doesn't follow

one good example of an undisputed champ was bhop... and mike tyson..

 

I don't.

Titles are stripped not for strongest available contenders usually, but for local heros. Than they gifht tomato cans for paper titles. Such 'champios' do not tarnish the legacy of the real champ.

 

In the case of Nate Campbell ... I wouldn't say he's the undisputed champion. He holds 3 of the 4 major belts but he still has to obtain the ring magazine title from Casamayor and possible fight Diaz for the WBC.

He's the champ but not the undisputed champ ... he's the unified champ of the division and the #1 ranked contender by the ring.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

That was the quote that I agreed w/ ...

 

This is simply ridiculous. You can't argue why the status of A is dusputed other than 'piece of skin is value in itself'.

 

Undisputed champ: All recognized belts, lineal, ring (LL, BHop, Spinks, etc.)

Unified champ: 2 or more belts from the abc's, ring. (Unfortunately Haye falls in this category b/c their is a major belt out there bs or not. Pavlik.)

Titlist: Anyone who fought for a vacant/striped title (basically all LWW titles, WW besides PBF's; list goes on and on)

People are lumping these 3 types of champs into the phrase Undisputed, which is a ridiculous thing to do.

 

Becoming an undisputed champ: either unify all titles or defeat an undisputed champ. That's all you have to know and that's the definition.

A fighter remains undisputed - even if he's stripped of one or two titles - until he gets beaten in the same class or announce his retirement/vacates for any reason. So if someone defeats an undisputed champ - even if not all titles are at stake - becomes the new undisputed champ. It's very simple. Learn these words, and you can correct another poster yourself.

 

So by your definition Calz wouldn't be undisputed b/c he vacated one of his belts correct?

 

But D ..
if the belt was vacated or stipped then IMO that belt has no clout and shouldn't be counted ... its a paper title and the rights to that belt belong to that of the champion.

In some circumstances the fighter choose to give the guy he won the belts from a rematch and was stripped for not fofilling his madatory or the fighter couldn't afford the sanctioning fees because his purse wasn't big enough.

IBF is a terrible sanction ... for the case of Haye .... I don't blame him for not going after than belt. It has no lineage and its a bunch of bull**** dealing with immediate mandatories.

JMM was stripped of his belt on some bull****
Judah got the chance to keep his belt after putting it on the line against Baldomir.
Bell was stripped because he choose to rematch Mormeck

 

there is a big difference in being a unified champ and being the undisputed champ.

there is dispute being the unified champ ... there's another belt holder who might have a better quality of opposition or have more lineage in his title.

there is no dispute when you have 3 or 4 major sanctioning belts along w/ the ring title. there's no one to beat besides ... contenders.

vacant belts don't hold much clout imo ... unless you defend that belt and face either the best contender or the rightful holder to that belt. (if he hasn't moved up in weight and was stripped)

 

No. Vacates = leaves his championship behind. Retires, moves up or down in weight, injury, whatever your reason. Vacating one title or wait for the stripping is the same thing. In vacating I mean vacating his 'undisputed title' or status. If Calzaghe moves up and stays in LHW for good, all his titles, as well as the undisputed championship, becomes vacant and there will be no undisputed champ in SMW until someone unifies.