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

So regardless of belts, its who you beat that counts not what colour his belt is... :yep

 

Oh so now Ring Magazine is the end all that be all? I don't think so. They're just a magazine. What makes their rankings so special?

 

Fools give Tyson problems because he wasn't "undisputed" e.g unified till 1988, so his reign was only 2 years long, and all that gibberish, so why not Wlad?

 

It used to be called objective journalism. But again, now days its objectivity is highly questionable.

 

Aye keep your thong on. I just was stating the definition as enforced by "The RING". I never said it was my opinion.:roll:

 

Erm Mike held all 3 belts.At that time the WBO was barely even formed yet. I believe it was created the following year. As for Vlad he only holds 1 belt currently.That doesnt make him unified.You need more than 1 belt to be unified.

 

if Peter becomes WBC champ, and Wlad has IBF/WBA/WBO. Then Wlad will be considered undisputed, especially considering he already beat Peter

I mean there are general rules, but it remains a case by case scenario.

If Maskev beats Peter then Wlad would have to defeat Maskaev and unify all 4 belts to become undisputed imo

 

Enough of this crap. Wlad needs the WBC/WBA/IBF straps to be undisputed, end of story. A goddamn magazine does not decide who's undisputed, the WBO strap isn't a neccesity either.

 

Ok, mr. don king. If you are saying that the most credible enteties in the world such as: wbc/wba/ibf have more credibility than the goddamn magazine, we are all in agreement with you.

 

Nope.....Unifying the WBC, WBA, AND IBF belts make you undisputed champion. WBOGUS has no real merit it is the newest of the alphabet belts and only got a little notoriety because of Nigel Benn, Chris Eubank, and now Joe Calzaghe. They have the "worst champions" of all sanctioning bodies.

 

Having all 4 makes you undisputed champ. Having ring belt or lineal IMO if there is no undisputed champ (in most cases) makes them "the man". Having one belt makes you a titlist.

 

Your bull**** is astounding. Why not do a little more reasearch on the champions each belt has and tell me again WBO is the worst?

 

Separating the words Linear and Undisputed is a mistake imo, thats when it gets complicated as linear and undisputed basically mean the same thing... Thats why 175 is so confusing.

 

There is no right or wrong answer to finding THE Heavyweight Champion of the World (unless of course, Lennox comes back.). By definition you will pretty much never have an Undisputed Champion in boxing again, there is just too much alphabet crap.

All you need do, is create a formula for which you would recognize a World Champion. And if someone reaches your criteria, then you have yourself THe Heavyweight Champion of the World.

 

Unified champion = Holding any 2 of the 4 belts

Undisputed champion = Holding the WBC, WBA, and IBF (and WBO, although it is not necessary to hold the WBO in order to be undisputed)