The Undisputed Champion

It depends what period of history we are talking about.

Before the titles split I would describe a lineal champion as undisputed, provided that no credible alternative claims on the lineal title existed.

Today I would accept a fighter who held teh four major titles (WBC WBA IBF and WBO) as being undisputed for practical purposes.

 

No.

No.

No.

No.

Yes. Screw the Brits.

 

A) or B) thats what undisputed means. But I think this distinction is trivial compared to the lineal champ or the "real champ". I think the undisputed term only really has mattered in this time period. Getting all the belts doesn't matter so much as being considered the best champion which is more in a fighters control.

Looking at history the HW belt has never been undisputed for a decade or more its not some norm thats been lost its just the way things usually are. There might have been a decade with an undisputed HW champ in the 20s if you look at clearly defined world belts but you had the whole Harry Willis situation. I don't think Dempsey not fighting for 3 years really qualifies as "undisputed" as today that situation would have absolutley spawned a seperate belt. This is not to mention the IBU and Commonwealth belts. Speaking of the IBU they had 3 different title lineages at one point because Uzcudin and Schmeling vacated to go to America.


1)No unless we're only talking about alphabet belts. Or if Spinks had retired in which case the belt would be disputed again when he returns.

2)This is the hardest question this situation kind of breaks the sports whole system. I consider Jones the "real champ" undisputed maybe, lineal maybe. I think this scenario is unique in that its fairly obvious the non lineal champ is the "real champ" and the lineal champ is fighting plainly unqualified contenders where we twist ourselves into pretzels finding a way to pass the lineage to the non lineal champ we otherwise would never agree with. Because in these situations normally something happens to resolve this either guy fights the lineal champ, loses to someone who will fight the lineal champ or retires. Whereas Michalczewski did none of these things for like 7 years and even then the lineage doesn't go to a deserving fighter until 2015.

If this situation wasn't arbitrary enough the one belt Michalczewski kept was the WBO which wasn't a major belt yet but at various weight classes was worthy of being one at various times. So you really can go both ways here because you can say

WBO wasn't a alphabet belt Roys undisputed
you can say WBO was a alphabet belt thus it was disputed
you can say WBO wasn't a alphabet belt but Michalczewski had the lineal belt so that doesn't matter and it was disputed anyway
Did I mention his lineal belt at the time is also now disputed?

3)Undisputed no. Vitali was a WBC champion on the books. I don't consider his 2nd reign real but the fact its on the books by definition makes the belt disputed. Most people myself included give Wladimir the lineal belt because of the uniqueness of the situation and the obviousness Vitali and Wladimir would never fight and Wladimirs comptition being better.

I guess Wlad would be "practically undisputed" because his brother would never fight him and theres no more major belts he could have won. I guess the alternative usage of the word "disputed" suggests when theres more than one champs there is a dispute that must be settled. If said two champs are related and wanted to maintain the situation where Wlad had 3 belts and Vitali had 1 its not really a dispute I guess.

4)No. Holyfield won an alphabelt belt its disputed even if I disagree with it and don't consider it a real belt. I don't acknowledge this belt more so because Holyfields infinite title shot glitch annoys me and less because its a terrible alphabelt belt. Ironically Ruiz is the only other HW to learn the infinite title shot glitch.

5)No same logic as 3 and 4. Louis didn't have a claim to be the real champ and the British gradually backed off as a result . But the belt was disputed Louis had gotten the claim from beating Savold it just wasn't a good one. Under KO only logic which was used in some early title fights Louis would have defended his belt against Charles because he wasn't knocked out. There are cases where someone with losses to the real champ has been given the belt though theres usually more to the story like a DQ, close decision or very competitive fight.

 

Usyk?

 

yes, Michael Spinks was retired then came back. Even before he retired he never attempted to unify, he only took one belt, then dropped it. Tyson conquered every other champion

yes, Lennox literally was the champion and had already beat the "lineal" champion before even grabbing the belts. There was no question even if stripped because he didn't lose it in combat.

No, his brother had claim to a belt (and an unofficial title) and was ranked just as high. He never won the belt his brother held after he retired so no............his quest wasn't complete.

Before my time

No, Dariusz held 2 of Roy's belts before him and was stripped, he didn't lose them in combat. Roy's claim was technically no stronger than Dariusz (although I think Roy would've won), Roy wasn't undisputed.

Not sure how you wouldn't call Tyson undisputed and he gathered every belt but would call Wlad undisputed and at no point in time did he hold claim to every belt. That actually makes it worse because it was vacant so the opportunity was there. Roy I agree, he wasn't undisputed.

 

The Undisputed Champion does not have to be the Lineal Champion (Spinks).
Briggs was the Lineal Champion without any belts.
The Undisputed Champion is the one who holds all the belts (3 or 4 depending on the era).
Usyk made it simple. He is the undisputed and lineal champion.

 

This is the case of Tyson and Spinks. For me, Tyson is the undisputed champion.
Why?
Because if then Spinks retired undefeated (and he only has a loss to Tyson in the last fight of his career), Tyson would automatically become the lineal champion, because there would be no point in Tyson fighting anyone for the title of lineal champion.

 

But there were fighters that could dispute Wlad's claim, because Wlad did not have every major belt. And as for Tyson, no there wasn't "still Spinks", he was retired, he abdicated his throne. Which Tyson picked up from Tony Tucker. Just like Fury's couple month retirement which made the winner of Usyk/Joshua the ring champion and piggy backed Usyk ahead of Fury. You can't retire then comeback so no Spinks retiring then sayin "one more time" is not enough to make Tyson not undisputed before their fight. Tyson had conquered everything he could conquer. At that point, Spinks was "a new challenge arises", not a reigning champ defending.

A vacant belt (especially one of the 3 major) means that Wlad was not undisputed, he didn't have all the puzzle pieces. And we all know the alphas dont rank titlists but they do allow unifications, which Wlad never capitalized on (politics being the reason or not). Wlad never had "that" belt, ever at any point in time. And yeah Wlad would've stopped both Cristobol and Stiverne but that isn't the point, I think Roy would've beaten Dariusz, but the fact remains he didn't. So he wasn't undisputed.

It's a very hard sell to say Mike wasn't undisputed prior to Spinks despite the fact he actually already had Spinks' belt and Spinks was retired and to say Wlad was undisputed despite the fact that he never got a final unification (reasons why and politics aren't relevant or the issue here, only was he unified or not).

Again if you look at it like puzzle pieces Tyson put all 3 together, Wlad didn't put all 4 together (hell even 3 as he never had the most prestigious one and I still don't consider the wbo the level of the other 3). Yeah he was absolutely the best, but not undisputed.

 

Doesn't hold the Weetabix Boxing Federation Heavyweight Title or whatever.

 

Well I guess then Wlad technically was undisputed lol.

Yeah I agree.

The quality of the WBCs HW title matchups since Vitalis first retirement have been utterly dreadful. Its one of several reasons I defend Wilder so much.