Is having Undisputed actually good for Boxing / fans?

In the ideal world you could have a trilogy with the fighters fighting someone else In between. This is how it should be.

The problem is nowadays everyone waits/has to wait until they're nearly retired to start having their career defining fights.

 

Yes, undisputed world championships should be the norm.
The OP I think is objecting to "two fight deals" and "rematch clauses" and "tying up the titles" ..... yes, those things should not happen.
There should be one fight for the undisputed title, and when it's done the loser should get back in the queue. The only exception being in the case of a very close and disputed decision or a draw, where an immediate rematch makes sense.

 

Either a) There should be ONE undisputed fight, and then the winner fights the mandatories after and the loser gets back in line or

B)The first fight should be for the undisputed, and if they want to have a 2nd fight that badly, they should forfeit some of the belts if you've got someone who's been a mandatory for a while like Usyk or Whyte. Usyk and Whyte should get a title fight against someone else high in the ranks.

Usyk vs Joyce for the WBO.
Whyte vs Wilder for the WBC.

And then the winner of the 2nd fight of AJ vs Fury gets to go on and fight the winner of those fights to regain the undisputed mantle.

 

I also think they MUST fight the 2nd fight THIS year.

They cannot wait another 6 months or else they should lose the belts, it's not fair to the mandatories.

 

Rematch clauses should be elminated. They shouldn't exist ever.
Immediate rematches should be discouraged. But in certain cases they make sense and the public demand them. There doesn't need to be a clause in the contract though.

 

I disagree with that personally, sometimes random fighters will KO a champ and then if there's no rematch will lose the belts to another another random.

Champs can have rematch clauses, but they have to accept potentially losing one or two of their belts in the process if there's a mandatory waiting, and the rematch is too far away.

 

The amount of belts makes it so difficult to ever have an undisputed.

 

Yeah, what's wrong with that ?

 

I agree with this. They should fight for all the belts and then they can vacate some the next day for all I care.

 

Some random fighter could get a lucky decision or a once in a lifetime KO, then without a champ rematch, the lucky chump could then get beaten by some other average fighter, and we'll have a bunch of chumps becoming undisputed time after time lol.

I personally found it ridiculous how Whyte was allowed a rematch despite not being champion, but I think champions should be allowed a rematch to prove the first fight wasn't a fluke on the challengers part, and they've earned it in my opinion.

 

Dont see anything wrong with it myself. IF...the contenders actually fight each other and just dont sit on mandatorys

 

Anyone who beat the champion should be regarded as champion, not just "some lucky chump"
I can't think of a "lucky chump" who's won a title lately.
If the decision is controversial, a rematch is bound to be demanded.

All champions should fight the best available challengers. I'm certainly not advocating the best contenders being avoided.
But champions who LOSE their title by clear-cut result should go back in the queue and have to fight another contender to get a shot at the title again.

Otherwise we just get a situation where rematches dominate, and contenders get left on the shelf waiting for two-fight-series' and trilogies to end.