is Vic Darchinyan UNDISPUTED champion at 115?

Well I guess we all have our own definitions. Therfore this discussion is pointless.

 

i think vic is no.1 in the division, beating montiel would make him undisputed champ. montiel beat a solid gorres and castillo (though past it was still no.1 to many). though i have no problem with anyone wanting to crown vic champ, since he has 3 major belts after all.

 

Guess it depends on your definitions...

He is undisputed holding the 3 major titles. That's enough for most other cases of Undisputed Champ.

But if you take the definitive meaning of the term - people are disputing his claim due to the fact that Montiel is at the very least at the same level as Vic. To be undisputed in that sense, he needs to beat Montiel.

He's undisputed champ to me, if he can add Montiel to that maybe we should add another title for boxers. One that says you're the champ belt wise AND every fan's definition wise or "The Abso-f*cking-Lutely Undisputed, Straight Up, Hero of the Super Fly Weight Division for All" title???

And everyone has to address you as Sir-King

 

He is undisputed, not an opinion but a fact.

 

nah..needs to beat montiel first

 

Vic is undisputed champion.

He isn't the undisputed best in the division.

Although he has the three belts so he is definitely the man right now. there is alwasy gonna be someone coming up who claims they are the best. The belts give you bragging rights.

 

I think that if Kessler had won the IBF from whoever held it, rather than fighting Calzaghe, you would have had a tricky situation.

Calzaghe would have been the LINEAR champ, whilst holding the lesser regarded WBO

Kessler would have been undisputed, holding the WBC, WBA & IBF

I didn't class Calzaghe as being undisputed, because someone else held the IBF title. He was no more undisputed than Hatton, who held the WBA & IBF at 140 late '05 and early '06.

If you hold the WBA/WBC/IBF titles, you are undisputed, unless somebody else is the linear champion - in which you have a conflict.

There are three main belts - the fact that someone else holds a WBO, IBO, WBF title is irrelevant.

How can you recognise an organisation that.......

1. Ranks DEAD people
2. Gives #2 rankings to fighters with NO meaningful wins
3. Places feather fisted chumps in prominent positions to aid promoters

 

Arce has an interim belt, Vic has the real belt. Arce doesn't count for these purposes.

 

Well in that case, how can you be undiputed if you're not linear champ? Even taking the WBO out of the equation, the fact that he's not linear means there's a dispute.

 

That's the same exact situation as Roy Jones Jr. and Dariusz Michaelczewski, when Roy had the WBA-WBC-IBF, but Tiger had the WBO and lineal titles (and the only reason Roy had any of those other belts was because Tiger was stripped due to bull**** sanctioning body politics).

In my opinion, people who hang on to the notion that just the three main belts= undisputed are Roy Jones apologists. There's no other good reason for that. The WBO has been a legitimate bet for going on 10 years now. It's not like anyone says that only WBA and WBC is required to be undisputed, even though the IBF was a **** belt 20 years ago.

As for 1 2 and 3 above, other than the 'ranking dead people' part (which was obviously a mistake), that's ALL of the sanctioning bodies, other than possibly the IBA (which nobody calls a legitimate belt). The WBO is no worse in that regard than the others, and these days the WBC is by far worse than the other three. You can't use this logic for disowning the WBO and not for the other bodies.

 

undisputed means there is no duspute that somebody else have claim
to be champion. Since Montiel is champion and he has good chance to bet Vic then Vic is not undisputed.

 

There hasn't really been a definite SMW linear champ, because throughout the 1990's the division was fragmented.

But - consensus would suggest that Calzaghe was the man. You can trace the 'lineage' from him, through Reid, Nardiello, Malinga and Benn.

 

Points taken elsewhere, but can't agree with you there.

You can diss the big three as much as you like, and are correct in saying they are a joke - but the WBO is a much bigger joke than the three put together.

Just look at it's ratings, and see how many Sports Network fighters are rated inside the top 15, despite them ducking the holders of the British and Euro titles.......

Yet those beltholders are generally nowhere to be seen.