The lesson from chess: what 'undisputed' really means.

Oleksandr Usyk is the 'undisputed' world heavyweight champion. And yet he is at the risk of losing his undisputed status - not in the ring but by an action from a sanctioning body. If the IBF arranges for a title fight, then the winner of that fight (e.g. Dubois/Joshua) will become the 'other' champion. This makes one wonder what purpose does 'undisputed' serve at all, if at any time, a new 'dispute' can be created at will, not by boxers, their managers or even promoters.

I would like to bring your attention to another sport - well actually it is a game. That is chess. Now, when it comes to drawing comparisons with boxing, the last sport/game in the world one could think of, would be chess. For, the two sports are diametrically opposite in their spirit and action. Yet, there is a striking similarity in how these two sports choose their champion. The underlying philosophy has been the same - to be the champ, you need to beat the champ.

In the early days of chess there was no organizing or sanctioning body in chess. The champion and his team often set terms, which included a purse split. In boxing terms, we call these champions, 'champions by convention' or 'lineal champions'. The newly formed governing body of chess - FIDE - sanctioned a match in 1928 which did not involve the reigning 'lineal champion'. This 'minor' title carried little value or prestige in the eyes of fans and was quietly retired shortly after. The defining moment in the sport arrived in 1946 when the reigning champion Alexander Alekhine died, quickly prompting FIDE to take control of things. FIDE took immediate action, set criteria for champions and challengers and introduced 'candidates' tournaments to select challengers.

All did not go well always, though. In the 1970s, the eccentric American world champion Bobby Fischer proposed his own terms for the title match against Anatoly Karpov and when FIDE refused to entertain his tantrums, resigned his world title. Later in the 1990s, champion Gary Kasparov and his challenger Nigel Short broke away from FIDE and played their own 'world championship' match. This created two champions - a 'classical' champion and a FIDE champion. Unlike boxing however, this did not lead to more fissures in the sport. Instead, the title was reunified in 2006, and the winner was called the 'undisputed champion'. Where chess succeeded over boxing is best illustrated by the fact that the title has never been split since.

What lessons can boxing learn from chess. How can the sport have a single, permanent, 'undisputed' champion?