Does having IBF/WBO/WBA make you undisputed Champ?

Its pretty much a given his undisputed. Theres not any better challengers plus he is unified.

 

He needs all four. Originally (at the time when the 4th title was created) the undisputed meant that the fighter had the WBA/WBC/IBF belts, but since the WBO champ can be the lineal champ, there's no undisputed champ without beating all other champions.

Joe Calzaghe did it (IBF - Lacy - stripped, WBC/WBA - Kessler)

Bernard Hopkins did it when he fought DLH (WBO was missing before that)

Of course everybody called Roy Jones undisputed champ however Dariusz Michalczewki unified 3 (WBO, IBF, WBA - the WBC was in Roy's hands at the time) and in defeating Hill he became the lineal champ. But not undisputed. Neither Roy when he unified.

So to be the undisputed champ you have to unifiy all titles OR defeat the actual undisputed champ if there's one.


UNDISPUTED = FOUR TITLES INCLUDING THE LINEAL TITLE

 

He needs the WBC to be unified, but he would be undisputed.

 

A Undisputed champion is something we should be able to crown without the confusing alphabet soup.

We should judge every title fight in its individual benefits. If we said the fighter would have to hold all 3 ro 4 major belts to be considered undisputed, we would have a champion for more than a coupla months as that is all it takes to strip a man of his belt.

 

And 2 combinations of any of the 4 belts makes a fighter unified. Undisputed is more hollisitc in terms of being the linear champ or the recognised number 1 which Vlad is across the board in all rankings.

 

You have it backwards. A unified champ is one that has two or more belts. To be undisputed, Wlad would need at least the WBC/WBA/ and IBF titles. No way he can be undisputed without the official belt(WBC). Especially considering the last undisputed champ retired as the WBC champ.

 

Yeah, it doesn't matter how many strap you really have. WK is the HW Champ.

 

I agree. To me, a fighter that beats #2 and #3 in the division is the undisputed regardless of the worthless straps.

 

He's the IBF champ, not the undisputed champ.

 

As Wlad is already ranked number 1, he he unified if Ibragimov (WBO) and Chagaev (WBA) I would consider him undisputed even though there is a WBC belt out there - or vice versa...****in hell this is hard to explain, its like the offside rule...

 

I disagree. How do you decide who the #2 and #3 guy in the division is? It's too subjective

 

Thats the definition of the "Champ" according to "The Ring".

 

It used to be the RING. Now days I am not even sure.

 

I thought there was a difference between "unifying two belts" and "being the unified Champ". I agree that in the days of the "big three", "undisputed champ" was the one who had all three and "unified champ" was someone who had just two, and thus "undisputed champ" meant more than "unified champ". But with the arrival of the WBO, things have changed. Thus, being "undisputed champ" means you have 3/4 belts and being "unified champ" means you have unified all the belts i.e. you have all four, not just two. Or have I got this all wrong?:think