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

As far as I'm concerned undisputed is still WBC/WBA/IBF. The Klitschko fanatics would love to think he could be undisputed with just the WBA/WBO/IBF belts but as far as most others are concerned he will need the WBC. Thats not to say I dont think Wlad is the best heavyweight in the world but I cant accept someone as undisputed heavyweight champion without the famous green belt. Sorry.

 

He has no greater claim than Maskaev to be champ, in fact the true lineage really goes to Maskaev since its Lewis`s retired belt. The other titles were regarded as being held by merely paper champs at that time and so Wlad picking any of them up doesnt make him any more of the real champ than Maskaev. He can never be called Undisputed if he doesnt beat the Maskaev/Peter winner. The WBO is completley irrelevant, in fact even that has a paper lineage since it was vacated [yet again] by Sanders after beating Wlad. Vitali retired as Ring champ so thats another figure to go in the equation if he comes back.

 

:good I especially agree with the bit about the WBO.

Calzaghe wasn't but Tszyu was because he held it at one time. Calzaghe is the undisputed champ now with the WBC.

 

The difference being Joe did at one time hold the IBF but he was stripped because they are idiots. There are many on this site who would disagree with your opinion apart from other Klitschko fanatics.:good

 

Look man, please dont take this as an anti-Klitschko post because it's not. I respect him & consider him to be the best heavyweight but I still think he needs that WBC belt to be recognised as undisputed champ & many others would agree. I think there's a good chance he'll be WBA/WBO/IBF champ by the end of the year which will be great for the sport. Then in 2009 he can settle business with the WBC champ & everyone will be happy.

P.S. Enjoy the fight.

 

Undisputed = wbc,ibf.wba always has!

Wbo to a lesser regard, lets not forget wbo champs regarded at 1 has got to be someone special, i.e calzaghe done it and nas as well.

But at 1 time another both did it, with having beat every other champion and holding one of the belts at the time.

Well except hamed be ripped off and beating the wba champ, but not allowing it for the title.

But anyway wbc,ibf,wba Wlad has never held all three titles and underfeated so he is not undisputed champ. HJe is only recognised as the best champ out of 4. :good

 

Agreed.:good

 

Nice, appropriate for today's world, and to the point:good

Yet, that has changed a bit, no?

I mean if you were' BA. BF back in the late 80's through the 90's ? You werent Unified. That was defined by Ring Magazine as being The BA, BC, and BF(ALL 3) Undisputed came along with that.

Suddenly? The BO pops up and years later finally start getting quality Champions and have a case now to be included in that Unification Equation.

So with those changes? The definition you used might be a better fit in today's scenario. :hey
Undisputed when two Unified's fight.

 

I don't value the belts very highly, and every case is different. The Champion is The Man, no matter which belts he holds.

In this case, I think Wladimir needs to have the WBA for certain. Now, if Peter defeats Maskaev, I think he can go without the WBC, as he already owns a win over Samuel. If Maskaev wins, that's one more belt for Wladimir to win to become undisputed.

At 175, I'd argue that someone could become undisputed without bothering with Erdei, who has proved to be a joke of a beltholder.

 

Every1 - just remember this - THE ALPHABET TITLES ARE ALL SHIIT

 

The belts have value(as structure) and Being A Champion has always been the goal. If they want to double stack Champs in divisions and dave a possible 6-?different Champions? We need some way to still sort out the TOP fighter at each weight class and that requires change and review.