Apparently, to be truly considered an undisputed champion, since 2007 you need to have WBA/WBC/WBO/IBF. Pre 2006 you only need WBA/WBC/IBF. The last fighter to do this was Jermain Taylor who actually held all 4. Judah and Bell were also Undisputed in 2006 by holding 3. Do you consider undisputed to mean have all 4, or 3/4 or what? Klitschko is considered undisputed by some but not technically undisputed. Same with Calzaghe because he relinquished the IBF when he fought Manfredo, but had 3/4. EDIT: Taylor and Bell were before 2007, when the WBO was recognized officially by the other 3 belts until 2006. Therefore, Taylor and Bell were truly undisputed.
There is currently no other titleholder than Klitschko in heavyweight, since WBC and WBA regular belts are vacant. In my opinion, holding the lineage and majority of the belts is enough to rightfully call yourself undisputed. Many champions were considered undisputed without holding a WBO belt, which wasn't highly regarded at the time, but realistically nobody will regard WBC belt highly now especially if it's held by a contender who isn't even considered to be in the top 3. I remember even Roy Jones being called "undisputed" by HBO despite technically being just a unified titleholder, with the lineal and WBO champion being Michalczewski. David Haye was considered undisputed without having IBF belt I think, so yes, Wladimir is undisputed Imo, so was Calzaghe at the time he defeated Kessler, but technically you still need all the belts.
You are correct, because it was pre 2007 where the WBO was not recognized. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_undisputed_boxing_champions[/url]
Bernard Hopkins wants to do it again in the 4x era Holyfield is the only human to hold the Undisputed crown in 2 divisions, a true legend :bowdown
Wlad would have been undisputed champion years ago if Vitali wasn't around.... Same could be said for Vitali as well I guess.
