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

Sorry pal, but Joe C. had absolutely no claims to being the undisputed champ until he beat Kessler. Even then it was debateable. Kostya was at one time the undisputed, but injuries and inactivity led to him being stripped and losing his undisputed status.

 

Im just here reminding every1 again , alphabet titles are nothin

 

I think some may benefit from this:

Undisputed: Without argument, not subject to dispute; "the undisputed fact"

Now the fact this thread has gone for five pages, suggests there is plenty to dispute!

 

Ironically the WBO lineage is merely a vacated paper one. Sanders had to vacate the WBO title so as to fight for the WBC title against Vitali in a fight that was also billed as for the lineal title.
Therefore Vitali actually is the true lineal WBO and WBC champ if he does come back! That will be settled betweeen him and the Maskaev/Peter winner before Wlad can get to them.

After Sanders vacated it Wlad and Brewster fought for the vacant belt, Brewster knocked Wlad out, if Wlad wins it he merely reclaims the lineage of victory from his own loss to Brewster[something his recent win over Brewster didnt do]. But ultimatley its a vacated title with no lineage to the true champion.
If Vitali comes back then we cant consider Wlad undisputed champion since Vitali never lost his WBC, Ring and in fact the true lineage of the WBO title!

Wlad vs. Vitali for the Undisputed title, especially since Vitali will likely hold the WBC title again also because he is going to get the Maskaev/Peter winner and likely will beat them.

 

Vitali vs. Wladimir is the biggest fight you could make in boxing -- just imagine the 24/7 -- but it won't happen. Nor would I really want it to. It's one thing for Floyd Sr. to train a fighter against his son, another for two close brothers to exchange punches.

More to your point, you're right that Vitali could screw the division up even further.

 

They've catrgorically stated several times it would never happen. They don't even spar together anymore. They used to be very coy in interviews, always stating that the other was better.

 

Debatable...go on...?

 

He didn't have the IBF stap, and he was stripped of that title because he decided to fight a money fight against an unworthy opponent. Therefore, you could make a case that he was rightfully stripped of his title. Assuming the IBF was justifiable in stripping him, he only had legitimate claims to the the WBA/WBC straps after beating Kessler. Being that one of the traditional criterias for being undisputed is holding the WBA/WBC/IBF staps at once, and being that the IBF stap was rightfully taken away from him, then one could make an argument that Calzaghe was not undisputed since he never held the WBC/WBA/IBF straps simultaneously.

 

So was Taylor- Pavlik not for the undisputed middleweight title?

What about Mormeck-Braithwaite?

The alphabet soup took their belts off of Tszyu aswel, was he not undisputed champion after they stripped him...?

 

When Ruiz held the WBA was Lennox the the undisputed champ?! O deary me i am confused...

 

I especially love hearing the complaints of what belts you have to have to be unified or undisputed champ. Then tomorrow the same posters will give out **** about all the alphabet boys:yep

 

I think this is a dubious argument. Stripping shouldn't happen except in extreme circumstances. Calzaghe/Kessler was without question the fight that settled the supreme being at 168, as Taylor/Pavlik was at 160. If a paper belt floats to Abraham or whomever, it makes no difference.

You're giving the belts too much credit.

 

No, no, and no.

 

I'm not giving anything too much credit. The traditional critera for being the undisputed champ is to hold the WBC/WBC/IBF staps simultaneously. This is pretty cut and dry.