What does Undisputed mean to you?

he beat pavlik,who beat taylor who beat hopkins who unified all the title with 20 title defenses

 

:smoke

 

Holding all the belts (WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO, naturally Ring also) or the majority of them.

The first is almost impossible, so most times we need to conform with the second.

 

You can't **** with what words mean.

Undisputed means simply that. Nobody can dispute you're the man, as you hold all the belts.

Not most of them. Not a magazine belt. Not all of them except the one your brother has.

WBA. WBC. IBF. Personally, I don't rank the WBO up with those belts.

But if you do, add that to the list as well.

Simple.

If there is no lineal champ, to restart the line, somebody has to become undisputed.

Not probably. Not the most popular. Hold all the marbles.

Only time I'd say someone is undisputed without all of the belts is if they had all of them, and were stripped for politics etc.

Lewis losing WBA for fighting Grant not Ruiz. Tszyu for being stripped of WBA and WBC when injured etc.

 

Andre Ward is the only real Undisputed Champion at his weight as he holds WBC,WBA & Ring and the other two champions (Froch-IBF) (Abraham WBO) he has wins over.

In my opinion you haven't got to hold all the belts to be undisputed, however have a win over other belt holder if that is the case.

 

This content is protected

Lewis also dropped the IBF so he didn't have to fight Byrd. Incidentally a southpaw, something he never fought. Byrd also beat Holyfield just as badly as Lewis did in that vacant title match.

 

This.

Example - Ward.

I don't think anyone can argue that he is not the undisputed at 168lbs. Anyone who does, well, their opinion shouldn't be relevant.

 

:good

 

a situation like this VV is also a good way of being undisputed.

 

Holds WBC WBA IBF and Ring Belts

 

Nope!

Lennox Lewis is a perfect example once he unified the titles they took the WBA title from him its not the titles that make you undisputed.

Undisputed means to me anyways "with out a doubt" the entire world recognizes you as the true champion of that division regardless of weather or not you hold on to all of the titles.

Reality is these sanctioning bodies do not like the idea of one unified Champ why is that? well when you have three titles WBC, IBF, and WBA, you must make one mando per year min to keep that strap, Todays fighters do not fight often enough to keep up with that sort of pace that would be 3 #1 challengers they have to face per year in order to keep the powers that be happy.
Which usually does not happen, one or two titles end up stripped because those people love them sanctioning fees..... so to me its not about all three belts its about what the world thinks

 

Undisputed means no dispute. You've beaten everyone that matters, or the people you've beaten have beaten all the people who matter. If a sanctioning body gives out a paper title after stripping someone, that shouldn't count against it. For example:

- While Joe Calzaghe never simultaneously held all 4 belts, he was undisputed at SMW after beating Mikkel Kessler. Lennox Lewis is another example of this.

- On the other hand, while Jermain Taylor did hold all 4 belts at one point, he was never undisputed because he hadn't beaten a number of top contenders who were there when he was the champ.

- Another person people called undisputed, Roy Jones was never undisputed (although he was one of my favorite fighters) because he and Michalczewski (who had an even better claim than Roy of being the true champ) never fought.

- Also, while it's not in order, I'd argue that Andre Ward is undisputed at SMW right now - he beat Kessler, Froch and Bika, while Froch beat Bute and Dirrell. The fact that Froch beat Bute right after fighting Ward is irrelevant here, IMO.

 

:good Pretty much.

 

So your saying Carlos Baldimor was not the Undisputed Champion after he beat Zab Judah..... I can dig it...

 

atsch Please, stop with this dumb ****!