Undisputed is overrated

I agree. At the the same time if that’s a possibility then it’s better to have become undisputed then to not have become undisputed if given the opportunity. 1 belt would be better then 4 belts though. This whole “first undisputed in the 4 belt era” is not a good thing, it’s sad.

 

I think that one's recent

 

It depends on the path to it...

Let's design a theoretical champion who deserves limited credit for getting to be undisputed:
He gets his belt against someone crap, defends it against opponents who have no business being in title fights and then has to be dragged kicking and screaming into a fight against someone with all the other belts... And wins by fluke KO - before being absolutely dominated and beaten twice to lose the trilogy in what's obvious a mismatch in hindsight, having never defended undisputed at all (let alone against anyone good!) then never holds a belt again.

That theoretical fighter HAS been undisputed, but it's mostly through luck and very careful management.


That fighter isn't the same thing as a fighter who goes and unifies each strap one at a time from worthy champions with decent records... Then defends it a couple of times before retiring as clearly the top fighter of his generation.


On paper, those are both undisputed fighters... But they're not remotely the same.


As usual, context is everything.

 

Imho the undisputed in hw for decades was a very very rare event and the pinnacle of what can be achieved in boxing . In no way it was overrated .

Its only here and now where the undisputed becomes a boring , meaningless event - because we have a champion who has 5 opponents with only 2 noteworthy hw fights on his legacy fighting for this title , bypassing mandatory title defences without being stripped , and fighting against somebody where it is clear he wins .

He kills the spirit of this title .

 

Lineal is goof enough for me
I'm not sure if Floyd or manny where undisputed, but they where lineal champions and recognised as the best in the division

3/4 belt era sucks. Being undisputed doesn't mean you are greater than those who fought in a era with less paper titles

 

I agree. Lineal is all that matters.

 

Manny wasn't even an unified champion. Floyd wasn't undisputed but he beat the guy who beat the undisputed champion, but the belts were lost in the usual alphabet body corruption scheme.

 

It is a good bonus but a little overrated perhaps.

 

There's a few ways to look at it:-

1. There are more belts and more politics agents etc, therefore arguably Undipsuted is more of an achievement
2. There are more divisions which underplays things a bit with Undisputed in the non-marquee newer divisions like 140 and 168 not having as much significance as traditional Lightweight, Welterweight, Middleweight, Light-Heavyweight and Heavyweight.

Does Bud Crawford then Josh Taylor getting repeated Undisputeds at 140 in the span of 5 years mean that division has less politics? Or was it just the way the cookie crumbled for those two fighters?

 

Undisputed means there is no major belt disputing your supremacy, because you own them all.

 

Add cruiser to the insignificant divisions also. It's not historically a great division. Granted it's a little better in recent times, but nothing like LHW back in the day

 

Which makes owning just one if the belt even worst. Getting all the belts requires more work. Getting just one of the big belt is who you know and how much money you can make in a fight.

 

It only has meaning in certain contexts. It's most relevant in WBSS tournaments or when there are a few strong individual belt holders.

Consider that Vlad was never undisputed due to politics, even though he was the money man of the division.

I believe the WBO stripped Fury and Usyk in 10 days to try to feed Joshua a belt.

 

Obviously being undisputed is a great achievement but you'll get the credit you deserve if you actually beat someone worthy.