It can be argued that there was a few days he was undisputed. Between the time of Vitali announcing his retirement and Stiverne winning the vacant belt, now one else was claiming to be champ. Thus, undisputed. But Usyk is more undisputed.
I class him as undisputed, this whole 4 belt nonsense means little He was the man that held the majority of belts for a lengthy time and was the recognized champ
Maybe dont mean much but Vitali being around gives major doubt to his undisputed claim I would say even negates it
I saw him as true champ from Povetkin. Most people don't give af about this stuff off the forum though.
The “true champ” things holds true. If you asked a boxing fan back then who “the” HW champ is, they’d have said Wlad. Just like right now they’d say Usyk (although Usyk does even have the IBF lineage), and in the early 80s they’d have said Holmes.
Wlad got a lot lowered to his level simply because no one else was any better. When we were young undisputed mattered, lineal didn't, and defenses were important. Lacking that, we just made up bull**** fallacies to award it to Wlad anyway.
Yeah, people seem to forget that the 4 belt era is a lot harder then the three belt era to become undisputed.
He was definitely the man when his brother was retired The thing I always used to feel when both Klitschkos were champions is that if someone lost to one of the brothers, it was like that was their title shot gone and they had lost to Klitschko as if they were one fighter and champion, which wasn't the case
Your right it was like that, I never thought about that you are right, unfair for their competition to be lumped like that.