With the proliferation of alphabet titles, a fighter has to mow down three or four opponents before claiming undisputed status. Sometimes more. As a result, can we be surer that the undisputed champions of recent years - guys like Tyson, Holyfield, Lewis, Bowe, Klitschko, and Fury (but were all four belts at stake for that one?) -- were actually the best fighters of their time? We don't see many Ingos, Walcotts, Spinkses, or Pattersons with undisputed status these days...
It'll never really go back to the days of undisputed upsets. Too many belts, hard to keep defending em all. I wish it could go back to the days of Charles, Walcott and Ingo, but those are long gone.
Kambosos/Teo? Kambosos won 2 SD against an old overblown Selby and Mickey Bey. That was a huge upset.
Small aside, but Klitschko wasn't undisputed, neither was Fury. Klitschko brothers didn't want to fight. Then when Stiverne picked up the WBC strap the WBC blocked undisputed and we got Stiverne v Wilder and then Klitschko v Jennings. Wilder had already won the WBC belt and made two defences before Fury beat Wlad. Which means Fury wasn't undisputed either.
Wlad was never undisputed. He was anointed Lineal champion when he won the Ring magazine belt by beating Chagaev. The problem was Wlad was Ring#1, Vitali was #2 and Chagaev was #3. Fans just kind of went with it after a while due to his longevity, and in fairness excluding his brother, he did pretty much beat all comers. Then again, there are fans who recognize Lewis as the last Lineal champion until undisputed starts a new lineage.
Huh. I could've sworn that he held the WBC at some point when his brother didn't have it, but Boxrec says otherwise. Learn something new every day. Thanks.
