i was furious when during the countdown to jmm-pac they said...

Oh ... well you can argue that PacMan was the Champion considering he held the ring magazine belt .... but then again Marquez reigned longer and was the unified champion. In most cases you would hold more clout with the ring magazine belt.

Man its hard to say ... thats confusing ... you got a guy who beat the recognized champion, then you have another guy who held multiple belts and reigned longer in the division.

 

Why don't Haye and SS fight for the ring belt and leave the sanctioning bodies out of this.

Then a loss won't effect either man and they can go about their business.

 

And as I said, they break their rules all the time. The WBC has stripped fighters before for trying to unify. The WBA is better about it now. The IBF does what it wants. Both could screw up unification and have before.

That is a list of unified champs. Not undisputed. Sure, some are Undisputed. Some are not. And they certainly aren't following your criteria. Unified is only about the belts (and that's what they are talking about). Undisputed champions also have to be Lineal champions. And they can't lose their title outside the ring (even by your standards). This articles says they can....

Even your criteria says that you can't lose Undisputed status due to stripping. This article means little IMO. It doesn't agree with ANYONE.

 

Did you even read the title? It's a list of undisputed champs. The criterea that I stated about undipisputed fighters not getting stripped was something I just made up . However, this isn't part of the tradional definition. The link cleary shows every fighter that held the WBA/WBC/IBF titles at once. Now let's go back to original point about how being undisputed is too hard under my standard. The link I provided uses an even tougher standard than I do. Despite this, there are ample champions listed. You can also cleary see that more fighters obtained undisputed status in this decade than in the 1990's.

 

It's Wikipedia. What does it say NOW? It says unified. That is some person's OPINION of what undisputed is. You cannot lose undisputed titles by being stripped. The person who made the article clearly does know the difference between Unified and Undisputed.

Juan Diaz never held the WBC title and he is listed. So no, that's false that all of them held the WBC, IBF, and WBA titles. It also doesn't take into account Lineal champions. You cannot be undisputed without holding the Lineal title.

 

Alright, I'm going to try a different approach. My standard says that the fighter must hold the WBC/WBA/IBF titles at once. This link shows every fighter that ever held the WBC/WBA/IBF titles at once. If disagree that one of the fighters that is listed as having the WBC/WBA/IBF belts did not do so, then point it out.

Now, back to the original point. So we don't keep going in circles, let's pretend for the sake of argument that there is no definition of an undisputed champ. Let's also pretend that we are trying to decide on a definition. Now, the definition that I'm proposing is that a fighter has to hold the WBC/WBA/IBF titles at once. You've already protested this proposel as you think its too tough and will lead to there never being an undisputed champ in the future. Based on this link, a link that shows a factual list of every fighter who have held the WBC/WBA/IBF titles at once; outside of HW, were there more or less fighters who held the WBC/WBA/IBF titles at once in this decade as compared to the 90's?

 

Please don't respond to my posts. You clearly have nothing of substance to add.

 

I can concede that it's easier to unify now with the WBA rules. The IBF still makes it very hard and has stripped many fighters for trying. The WBC has as well.

 

Good, now we at least we agree that it's easier. While I agree that IBF has stripped many undisputed(my standard for undisputed)champs, it looks as though many fighters have still been able to unify the WBA/WBC/IBF belts. It also looks like the WBC only stripped one undisputed(once again my standard for undisputed)champ.

 

All the fighters on that list DIDN'T hold the WBC, IBF, and WBA. Diaz didn't. Nor does Campbell. Nor did Calzaghe. And in Diaz's case, he didn't hold the Lineal title so there is no way he was undisputed. Neither did Jones, so he wasn't either.

I think that you allowing the line to be BROKEN by not passing the title along when a fighter is stripped is too tough.

A better question would be how many fighter re-unified AFTER the Undisputed champion was stripped and then beaten. That is my issue with your standard. When the fighter is stripped for whatever reason, you don't allow his undisputed status to be passed along to the fighter who beats him in your scenario. Why do you think it has taken so long to get Undisputed champions? Because it's hard to unify because of the ABC mandatories and just general BS. Have there been more lately? Yes....after years and years of having none. But what happened when those fighters (the recent Undisputed champions) were stripped? When they lost, you dont' allow the status to move on, and no one has re-unified the titles. And no one will in most cases, just like they couldn't before in the mid 90's.

I agree it's easier now than in the mid 90's, but your scenario is still problematic. It doesn't support the best fighting the best to get one champion because it relies on the ABC's too much. Once the fighter is stripped, he has to go back an unify titles while keeping his own. Undisputed isn't about that to me or most people. It's about beating the best in your division. If you beat the man who beat the man who unified everything, you should keep your status. And most think you do. Why give status to someone who DIDN'T beat the champion? Many times that guys has already LOST to the guy they stripped.

 

The link clearly indicates that these fighters didn't hold the WBA/WBC/IBF belts. I didn't post this link to try to prove to you what undisputed meant, I posted it in order to illustrate how many boxers have won the WBC/WBA/IBF titles.


On to the second highlighted point. The answer to this question is none. However, you have to ask yourself, is it the fighters(including their promoters and managers), or the sanctioning bodies that is preventing this? It's hard to have a unified champ when fighers are unwilling.

David Haye could fight Cunningham for the undisputed title. However, he wants to go to HW. I'm not putting Haye down, but how is this the fault of the sanctioning bodies? Ricky Hatton succesfully unified the WBA/IBF titles. However, he didn't want to fight Floyd when he had the WBC title at JWW. Again, how are the sanctioning bodies to blame? The WBA/IBF WW titles will be unified this summer. We could easily have an undisputed champ at WW in 2009. The only person standing in the way of this is Floyd, not the sanctioning bodies.

Do the sanctioning bodies ****** the process sometimes? Of course. However, you can't deny that many fighters have also ******ed the process.

 

The sanctioning bodies ****** the process by asking for outrageous fees too. Mayweather by all rights should have the WBC, WBC, and IBF. Baldomir should have had them. He shouldn't have to pay 3 seperate fees for a unified title. This is not good for the boxer.

Both are part of the problem, but my point is if they kept their status directly after beating the former champion, this wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue.