So I was doing a little more research and found that to be considered the undisputed champion in a single weight division, you need to have the WBA title as well as two of the other three associations' championship (WBC, IBF, WBO). However, I also read somewhere that the undisputed title consists of the WBA, WBC, and IBF titles. However, if you have the WBO title that does not really count unless one is to be considered the SUPER CHAMPION = WBA/WBC/IBF/WBO. In addition, if you have a combo of the WBC/IBF/WBO without the WBA title, that is not considered being the undisputed champion. How about if you have the WBA/WBC/WBO title: is that the undisputed title right there? I was hoping someone could just clarify this for me. And how come the WBO title does not count even though it is recognized as one of the four major sanctioning bodies in boxing?
there is no 1 definition. In most cases, being undisputed today means having WBA, IBF, WBO, and WBC, and sometimes even the ring.
You're reading the WBA's definition of the terms. According to the WBA, if you have their title and one other title, your are the unified champ. If you unify the WBA belt with two other belts, you're the undisputed champ. If you unify the WBA belt with the other 3 belts, you're the super champ. Once again, these are terms that were made up by the WBA, and is only used to define unified WBA champs. Unified champs have mandos every 18 months. Undisputed champs have mandos every 21 months. Super champs have mandos every 24 months. Now, in general, the undisputed champ is traditionally the IBF/WBC/WBA unified champ. However, with the rise of the WBO belt, things have changed. Some say you need all 4, some say 3 out of 4 will do. There's no clear cut answer.
If a guy has all 4 and losses to another guy that doesn't pay the sanctioning fees,tha guy that won is undisputed even though he has only one belt.
In my opinion, undisputed means UN - DISPUTED. You can't be undisputed if someone else is the lineal champ or the Ring champ, because then there's a dispute. Thus, Roy Jones Jr. was never undisputed at LHW, even though he held three of the major belts, because Tiger had just as good of a claim to be the champ as he did. You CAN be undisputed if someone else holds a paper title that you used to hold and never lost in the ring. For example, Calzaghe was undisputed at 168 after beating Kessler, even though Bute held one of the belts, because Calzaghe had claimed all of the belts and beaten all comers, and was stripped due to ABC politics. Also, Hopkins was undisputed, and Taylor was undisputed when he beat Hopkins, but Pavlik did not become undisputed when he beat Taylor (because by that time the belts had gone elsewhere, and Pavlik needs to establish his own string to be undisputed, which would require beating Abraham and Sturm). Of course, that's just my definition. As said above, there is no one definition that's universally used. That's just the definition that makes the most sense to me.
In some Divisions the WBO is better than the others. I just go by The Ring Magazine Belt. If you are not the Ring Magazine chamopion than you are not the champion of that division.
I think the Ring title has waaaaay too much credibility.Its only a boxing magazine in this age of mass media and websites, but is seen by some as a sacred cow.
The WBO HW belt is just as valuable as the others these days. The undisputed title is not a specific set of championships... The WBA, WBC, IBF, and WBO are the four major belts. The IBO doesn't count.
It gets confusing really. There are too many sanctioning bodies. Undisputed is just that, when there is no one else to dispute the claim. I try to look at it in a linear fashion. Its alot easier but still can get muddled sometimes.
