Definition of undisputed champ

In my opinion, the better way to establish the supremacy/superiority of one great fighter over a good one is to be objective. And a fighter can claim the undisputed status if, and only if, he is able to either unify all the recognized belts of his division or soundly beat the current undisputed champ(if such applies).

i guess everyone's aware that in some cases, titles are unjustly stripped and reasonably vacated. probably because of the org's rules, policies or merely just because of bad org politicking. but if we use these as qualifying reasons for claiming the legitimacy of a fighter who was either stripped or vacated then we will lose the objectivity of the title "UNDISPUTED" that we ought to accord to those who rightfully deserve it.

...and in the absence of such objectivity, everyone will try to DISPUTE everyone...and these endless discussions will never be put to a close..:-(

 

Fitz, I see what you are saying. If a fighter Vacates then no undisputed, probably unified champ. The confusion comes about when a fighter basically throws a belt in the garbage, that sactioning body takes it out of the trash and puts it on the line between two contenders. the winner is a paper champ, no doubt. But the fighter who threw the strap away can't say he's undisputed b/c he chose to walk away from a sactioning bodies belt. Agreed?

 

Yep. Floyd became undisputed champ when he beat Baldo. You don't pay fee for the undisputed championship. It's a status. Baldomir didn't pay the organizations sancioning fees bacause he didn't want to get a paycheck of $10000. But he still beat the undisputed champ, didn't he?

 

Agreed

That fighter shouldn't claim to be the undisputed champ then ...

If he just doesn't see any point to take on pointless mandatories or pay ridiculous sanctioning fees then there's no point to holding on to that title.

I think when it comes down to it - its a matter of opinion.

Whoever the people think is undisputed champ ... is the champ in their eyes.

The definition by bloggers have been consistant ... the undisputed champ has to have 3 or the 4 major belts along with the ring title.

Vacants suck and shouldn't be held with any clout in the game.

In the arguement for Haye ... Cunningham didn't beat anyone and shouldn't be in the talks of a fight w/ Haye. He will taste the same fate as Macca - who won his title because Nelson vacated it and retired. Haye beat the champ and is the champ. SS Cunningham couldn't punch his way out of a wet paper bag and would get KO'd.

The same goes for Cotto, Cintron, Mundine, Witter, Torres, Malignaggi, Rees, and the list goes on.

 

And it's not my standard, it's the definition. There's only one standard. Of course it's confusing sometimes (WBO needed or not, lineal championship needed or not) but the definition is still as short as a David Tua fight: unify titles or defeat one who has previously done it.

 

In the case of PBF ... he's the universally recognized undisputed champ. That is a title that can't be taken away and is accomplished by beating the champ and not paying ridiculous fees and having to fight madatories not on your level for money that you could make shooting dice.

 

agreed 100%

 

Now if you beat a guy who won a vacant and defended that title, then there's a possibility to obtain some lineage in a victory.

A guy can write his own lineage and beat up guys en route to many defenses.

You have to fight quality guys though ... you can't beat up the Oktay Urkal's of the world and expect to be considered a champion.

You can't beat the Lovemore N'dou's of the world and claim to be a champ when you're holding a belt that rightfully belongs to Hatton. The same Hatton who beat Kostya Tszyu for that belt and who beat Urango to get it back. The IBF is full of ****, stripping Hatton after beating Urango to get it back.

You can't beat a hand full of contenders and expect to get clout ... even if you knock them out. Guys have to have a name and have accomplished something in the sport. Rather it be they have a title at the time you fight them or they had a title before hand and challenge you for your title.

I don't see that in alot of guys -- getting hyped up because they beat guys who haven't did anything significant, never had a title, or won a title that was stripped or vacated by a guy still in the division. or got a bull**** regular championship title.

 

Don't you get 1 year to fofill your mandatory and have a chance to rack up some unification bouts or voluntary defenses?

I thought after a year of inactivity has past you then have 90 days to fofill your mandatory. Even in that case your #1 contender has a chance to fight the #2 for the interim title which after 90 days turns into the full title, baring injury.

 

Is this a subliminal shot at Mali??? :rofl How could you do that???!!! You know he's your all time favorite boxer!

Is this a subliminal shot at the 'people's champ' Miguel Cotto?!?! Though you can say he beat two past prime shot champs in Zab and SSM....

 

That part isn't even true. He wasn't Lineal until he beat Briggs.