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

He would be the linear and recognized heavyweight champion if he won the WBO, IBF and WBA.

 

Not to be a pain in the ass?



But Linear either requires Ring Mag UNIFICATION (BA, BC, BF) or some mysterious # 1 and # 2 :bbb 's facing off. There is no clearly specified process for how these are determined to be.


Need further reference??


Ask KG......Tell em......$$$$$$$$$$$ sent ya:yep


:rofl Feeling silly tonight:yep , but the points still valid:good

 

stupid, illogical post

 

Yeah, actually the Ring mag/consensus #1 vs #2 criteria would be fulfilled, as the WBC champ is not in anyone's top 2 (and Wladdy would have otherwise cleaned house). :good

 

Undisputed = WBC/WBA/IBF champ

Joe C. never held all three titles at the same time. Therefore, Joe. C was never the undisputed champ.

Kostya Tszyu was the WBC/WBA/IBF champ. Tszyu was stripped of the WBC/WBA by the time he faced Hatton. Therefore, Tszyu was not the undisputed champ when he fought Hatton.

If you want to argue about what makes a person an undisputed champ, that's fine. However, there's no clear cut answer as to what makes someone an undisputed champ. Given this, to call my post stupid and illogical shows your complete ignorance. Please tell me exactly how my statement about Tszyu and Calzaghe not being undisputed champs was stupid and/or illogical?

 

Here's the problem though, Linear doesnt agree or respect Ring Rankings.


Like I said, see KG, tell him $$$$$ sent ya. Top secret, double PEACE, we gotta save the world type ****:nut :huh :think :think


I'm in A GOOD MOOD!!

bUT STILL? The point I'm making is CORRECT:yep Linear falls apart under scrutiny, and so does a 3 belt system, IN A 6 BELT WORLD:rofl


:-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-(

 

I know mate, which is why I wrote consensus...ring mag is a big part of the consensus ratings, but in the end they are just one voice out of many. :good

If you look around the top 10 boxing publications and they each have the same #1 and #2 in a division (say, Pavlik and Taylor a couple months ago), then such a figth would fill a linear vacancy (though the title was not vacant in that case). In many cases, it's not quite so clear-cut, I agree.

And kg and I have discussed all this in the past as well (he's a sharp one ).

 

Have I missed something? Has the WBO replaced the WBC? Assuming it does make you undisputed what would happen if someone wins the WBC/WBU/IBO titles? Would they be undisputed too?

 

Looks like I am way late to get in on this one, but let me submit this anyway:

Four belts is too many, there are too many mandatories to make it possible, it is too much money in sanctioning fees, and who the hell are these little petty dictatorships to be holding the title of heavyweight champion anyway?

The belts are all ****ing worthless. What Wladdy should do is win one after the other, DUMPING THEM IN THE TRASH AND PISSING ON THEM AS HE GOES ALONG. **** them all.

Wladdy has already beaten Peter who is apparently the champion of something after narrowly beating that unparalelled warrior Jameel MCcline. If he beats Sultan and Chag then he is the champ regardless of what is holding his pants up at the end of the day.

**** alphebet soup.

 

Look at the Juan Diaz situation. He currently holds the WBA/IBF/and WBO titles. The winner of Diaz-Campbell has zero chance of getting to David Diaz (WBC champ) because Arum will keep David safe until he can hand that belt off to Pacquiao. And some have said that the Diaz-Campbell winner wouldn't be undisputed champ, because they didn't beat Casamayor, who doesn't even hold a title anymore. And by some folks logic, if the Diaz-Campbell winner fights the Casamayor-Katsidis winner, they STILL wouldn't be "undisputed" because they didn't fight David Diaz for the WBC belt?
I'm getting a headache.

 

I know, reading through this thread has had the same effect on me.

 

It really don't matter to me, I consider Klit the HW champ anyway :yep

 

I guess if Wlad beats Sultan and Ruslan, and Peter beats Maskaev, that would make Wlad the undisputed champ for having beaten Peter already.

 

Well, the truth is, only one guy is supposed to be the best in every weight class. For a champ to find out if he indeed is the best, he should seek out other belt holders and see who is the best. He never had to hold those belts simultaneously, just beat those guys who claims to be champ the same time that he is. Check Lennox Lewis, he holds only one, WBC. He beats Holy who is perceived as the best/the champ. After proving himself, he never gave a damn if the WBA or IBF stripped him of his titles.