How Important is Undisputed to You?

[Draper]

I've been following a YouTube uploader named 78sportstv for general boxing talk and news about upcoming fights, and title unifications are a frequent subject. There's a real emphasis in his videos on the need for undisputed bouts to make great fighters, and I totally agree. The belt situation in boxing is too convoluted for any of the current talent pool to become a real star or for a casual to care. Nobody's name is synonymous with their division since there are WBA, WBC, IBF, and WBO champions and no distinction in merit between any of them. It's been decades in most divisions since there has been an undisputed champion, so one today stands to gain enough prestige for superstardom. Boxing needs that imo.

 

[hillelslovak87]

It matters above all else. Way too few beltholders are actual champions.

 

[The Can Opener]

I care about good fighters fighting good fighters to see who's great. Belts are often meaningless because rankings are so stupid the mandatory opponents are usually awful.

You can pay to avoid the best fighters. You can drop a belt to avoid a threat but keep your other belts. You can move up or down in weight to fight so losing is meaningless because you keep your belts no matter what happens. It's a joke.

Even if you dedicate your entire career to unification it can takes years and years of undefeated fighting to come close to stacking the belts. That also means years of defending the belts you have against cans who get ranked for no actual reason while waiting for more belts.

 

[JayE]

You don't need to be undisputed (in the sense of holding all 4 major titles) to be a genuine champion, but being a genuine champion and not just a titlist is very significant. Still, there are countless all time greats who never had the chance to be genuine champions for various reasons. When it comes down to it, resumes are based on the quality and quantity of the fighters beaten.

 

[wilddeuces]

Undisputed means that you've made your way to the top and haven't just fought a convenient style that happens to have a belt. It means that you have fought and beaten several elite guys that are at the championship level. I think that's a big deal. There can be four major titles, and the fighter in question maybe maneuvers his way to the more stylistically agreeable of the four. But if he picks up the other three straps, then he's overcome more adversity at the highest level. Guys that drift through weight classes and poach belts are interesting to watch because at what point does the increased weight of the opponent become a 'bridge too far'? Still though, that champ they fought at that particular weight may have played into the fighter's hands.

Hagler's run at middleweight was just awesome. Some criticize him for only being a middleweight and not moving up. I think there's something special in being consistent. Destruct and Destroy FTW! Hopkins had - I think - most if not all of the major titles, I think he was undisputed. That was awesome. Golovkin has a damn tough fight in front of him. His quest to be undisputed could be easily ruined for good if he can't beat Saul Alvarez twice (because if there is a rematch clause for Alvarez's side, it's gonna get used) and that's a tall order for anyone since he has a judge/fan-friendly style. But if he beats Alvarez twice and snags the WBO, then that's all time goodness right there.

To be called undisputed means that no one else can claim to be your equal or rival - it's the ultimate accolade a fighter can achieve, but by no means is it the only way to indicate greatness (what if a flyweight becomes heavyweight champ? That'd be sick, bro).

 

[Shoemaker]

You don't need to be undisputed (in the sense of holding all 4 major titles) to be a genuine champion, but being a genuine champion and not just a titlist is very significant. Still, there are countless all time greats who never had the chance to be genuine champions for various reasons. When it comes down to it, resumes are based on the quality and quantity of the fighters beaten.

Klitschkos come to mind recently. GGG also. LHW seems like it will be tough to unify with Adonis there.

 

[Congo66]

Undisputed means a lot more in boxing that it does in the UFC, hearing fighters announced as the undisputed UFC whatever champion is just annoying, who the hell disputes them being the UFC champion?

Seeing an undisputed boxing champion is great but when politics and tv contracts get in the way you still know who the real champions are, usually.

 

[cottagecheesefan]

I think it was extremely influential in the whole "fighting while in prison" genre of action movies. Snipes and Rhames do a really good job on screen together.

 

[MC Paul Barman]

1. Undisputed
2. God
3. Wife
5. Children
6. Country
7. General Hygiene

 

[Hagler]

Undisputed is undisputed to me.

 

[Marc A]

1. Undisputed
2. God
3. Wife
5. Children
6. Country
7. General Hygiene

I don't see the girlfriend in that list ?

 

[Marc A]

Undisputed is very important means you crushed everyone . Top dog grrrrrrr

 

[treelo]

Klitschkos come to mind recently. GGG also. LHW seems like it will be tough to unify with Adonis there.

ahh...didnt read the original you were replying to....edited

 

[Shoemaker]

1. Undisputed
2. God
3. Wife
5. Children
6. Country
7. General Hygiene

Booze is 7. General hygiene gets an honorable mention imo.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

I've been following a YouTube uploader named 78sportstv for general boxing talk and news about upcoming fights, and title unifications are a frequent subject. There's a real emphasis in his videos on the need for undisputed bouts to make great fighters, and I totally agree. The belt situation in boxing is too convoluted for any of the current talent pool to become a real star or for a casual to care. Nobody's name is synonymous with their division since there are WBA, WBC, IBF, and WBO champions and no distinction in merit between any of them. It's been decades in most divisions since there has been an undisputed champion, so one today stands to gain enough prestige for superstardom. Boxing needs that imo.

You can see it on the UFC now with all the interim titles they've been creating lately. It's all a ploy to sell PPV's as "championship" events. Each organization in boxing is basically doing the same thing. Some, like the WBA, even include "regular" as opposed to "super" champions that have unified. It really dilutes boxing's ability to have great champions the way we had during the golden age of boxing. Unfortunately this system works to generate sanctioning fees and sell PPV's to the casual fan so I think it's here to stay.

As far as the old school champions that defended against the best contenders, or that won the championship in different divisions, we need to take that into account when ranking them in a historical basis. A guy like Armstrong, whether you believe he could compete against fighters of today, should be rated higher for his accomplishments as opposed to guys like Broner that have won "titles" in different divisions but not necessarily facing the best opponents.

 

[ironfist05]

depends who holds the titles. Like, I don't give a shit about a lot of the lesser titlists. Saying you're undisputed is cool, but it's more important to have good names on your resume than just low tier titleholders (like Ricky Burns at 140, WTF was that?)

 

[Kovalev's "Man Bag"]

It's important to me because for a fighter's legacy it can mean a lot (if in a strong division especially). Accomplishing this will get your name into the history books and we just don't see it anymore in large part thanks to the WBO title now being a requirement to truly claim "undisputed" championship status. There's also really no debate as to who the best fighter in the division is unless you're old and/or washed up and still hanging around as undisputed champ. It's also the ultimate goal that a fighter can achieve in his/her division assuming they beat or become lineal too on their way to doing it, as is the case most of the time.

 

[nastyleft]

Klitschkos come to mind recently. GGG also. LHW seems like it will be tough to unify with Adonis there.

I thought Lennox is still the last Undisputed HW Champion?
Wlad was Linear, no?

 

[Hagler]

Some consider that Wlad became lineal when he beat Chagaev, even if Vitali was the WBC champion.

It seems to me that Lewis is the last undisputed HW champion.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

I thought Lennox is still the last Undisputed HW Champion?
Wlad was Linear, no?

Wlad and Vitaly were sharing.