Where do you guys rate the IBO belt?

What can I say? I just form my own opinion on it, based on a variety of things. That's all I can tell you. Hey, come on - no need to twist things to such a silly level. Besides, I'm not even religious. :wnk1: What happened to agreeing to disagreeing? We're obviously going nowhere on this. It was you yourself who elaborated on your criteria. I pointed out the sillyness and non-uniformity of those criterias. This being NSB you are of course allowed to use whatever criterias you want to.

A mish-mash of sources forms your opinion as to whether a fighter is undisputed champion or not? What can I say? I just form my own opinion on it, based on a variety of things. That's all I can tell you. I guess that if enough people tells you that the pope is really a protestant you believe it. Hey, come on - no need to twist things to such a silly level. Besides, I'm not even religious. :wnk1: What happened to agreeing to disagreeing? We're obviously going nowhere on this.

No, many places. One might call it a mish-mash of sources, to go with my struggles as to whether I consider belts to be worth anything at all these days. Sometimes I do so on an optimistic premise (i.e. someone really deserving of being a champion), whilst other times I don't want to even acknowledge the existence of those things because of how silly they conduct business (i.e. Bradley having to drop a title after winning it). I'll leave it at that. :conf3: A mish-mash of sources forms your opinion as to whether a fighter is undisputed champion or not? I guess that if enough people tells you that the pope is really a protestant you believe it.

the fighter makes the belt,being a world champion doesnt mean anything these days look at guys like erdei and balszay-world champions but it doesnt mean they are world class,far from it actually

The last thing boxing needs is another belt. I havent checked out the IBO ranking system but if its cool as some posters here say then hopefully the other organizations will catch on and use a similar system.

So you just use the undisputed term randomly with a reference of what you've read or heard only. No, many places. One might call it a mish-mash of sources, to go with my struggles as to whether I consider belts to be worth anything at all these days. Sometimes I do so on an optimistic premise (i.e. someone really deserving of being a champion), whilst other times I don't want to even acknowledge the existence of those things because of how silly they conduct business (i.e. Bradley having to drop a title after winning it). I'll leave it at that. :conf3:

With the definition of "major", in this day and age, being very subjective. Each org has their own view on it, which makes it all the more worse. Not really my view at all, but rather that of what I've read and heard over time. I've just stuck with it, I guess. If one really wants my view, I'd say technically only Hopkins and Jones, Jr. were the last true undisputed champions in their divisions - having claimed every possible belt available. I find that amazing sometimes. But then, as one can see, the term "undisputed" gets thrown around with so many meanings that it's pointless going over it when everyone seems have their own opinion of it. Sure, no worries. :smile1: So you just use the undisputed term randomly with a reference of what you've read or heard only. Ok.

You cannot be undisputed unless you hold the major titles. With the definition of "major", in this day and age, being very subjective. Each org has their own view on it, which makes it all the more worse. As far as I understand your view you believe that a fighter only has to hold a portion of the titles to become undisputed. Not really my view at all, but rather that of what I've read and heard over time. I've just stuck with it, I guess. If one really wants my view, I'd say technically only Hopkins and Jones, Jr. were the last true undisputed champions in their divisions - having claimed every possible belt available. I find that amazing sometimes. But then, as one can see, the term "undisputed" gets thrown around with so many meanings that it's pointless going over it when everyone seems have their own opinion of it. Let's agree to disagree and leave it at that. Sure, no worries. :smile1:

i rate all belts the same.... SHIT

I think it's silly for anyone to be that anal about a set of terms which more or less means the same thing in the grand scheme of things. Linear, undisputed, whatever - if you've got the main alphabet gold, you're probably the best to boot (providing there's a majority agreement on that). But he immediately dropped the WBA for not wanting to face Ruiz (IIRC), so after that he held the WBC, IBF and IBO belts. They still called him undisputed champ right up until the Tyson fight. You're saying he never was, but a lot of other parties say otherwise. By that point the WBO was a major player. Same as above. I'll call all of that subjective, then. If one guy claims ownership of nearly all the available belts in his division barring one or two, he's undisputed in my view. None of this linear crap. You cannot be undisputed unless you hold the major titles. As far as I understand your view you believe that a fighter only has to hold a portion of the titles to become undisputed. Let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Maybe you are misinterpreting linear with undisputed? I think it's silly for anyone to be that anal about a set of terms which more or less means the same thing in the grand scheme of things. Linear, undisputed, whatever - if you've got the main alphabet gold, you're probably the best to boot (providing there's a majority agreement on that). Lennox did have the WBC, WBA and IBF belts after defeating Holyfield. WBO was not considered one of the major bodies back then as i recall. But he immediately dropped the WBA for not wanting to face Ruiz (IIRC), so after that he held the WBC, IBF and IBO belts. They still called him undisputed champ right up until the Tyson fight. Calzaghe dropped the IBF title after winning it from Lacy. The Kessler fight was therefore only a unification of the WBO, WBC and WBA belts so he was never undisputed. You're saying he never was, but a lot of other parties say otherwise. By that point the WBO was a major player. Haye never held the IBF title (Cunningham did) and therefore wasn't undisputed. Same as above. I'll call all of that subjective, then. If one guy claims ownership of nearly all the available belts in his division barring one or two, he's undisputed in my view. None of this linear crap.

General consensus, according to whom? So you mean to tell me that Lennox wasn't undisputed champion during his reign (after dropping the WBA strap), nor was Calzaghe, Haye, Judah, Tszyu, Tyson, Bowe... http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/8234/raisingeyebrow3.gif Maybe you are misinterpreting linear with undisputed? Lennox did have the WBC, WBA and IBF belts after defeating Holyfield. WBO was not considered one of the major bodies back then as i recall. Tyson was undisputed by having WBA, WBC and IBF belts. Those were the ones that mattered back then. Calzaghe dropped the IBF title after winning it from Lacy. The Kessler fight was therefore only a unification of the WBO, WBC and WBA belts so he was never undisputed. Bowe was undisputed after winning the 3 titles from Holyfield. Haye never held the IBF title (Cunningham did) and therefore wasn't undisputed.

the general consensus is that if you are to be called undisputed champion you must hold the 4 major titles at the same time. General consensus, according to whom? So you mean to tell me that Lennox wasn't undisputed champion during his reign (after dropping the WBA strap), nor was Calzaghe, Haye, Judah, Tszyu, Tyson, Bowe... http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/8234/raisingeyebrow3.gif

i dont care about it,just another belt that means very little

OK, you're going to have to point me in the direction of these rankings of which you speak and take so much stock. All I know is that many good names have held that belt in multiple divisions and fought good opposition in defence of it (or their other belts). How so? You can check the independent rankings by boxingscene, ring magazine or ********* for instance. Because the general consensus is that if you are to be called undisputed champion you must hold the 4 major titles at the same time.

Check the rankings and you'll surely find that IBO is the weakest of the bastards. OK, you're going to have to point me in the direction of these rankings of which you speak and take so much stock. All I know is that many good names have held that belt in multiple divisions and fought good opposition in defence of it (or their other belts). I think you'll find yourself in a very tiny minority with your last paragraph. How so?

What? I'll say it again, the IBO belt has been held by nearly every living great/top fighter within the past 15 years. Pacquiao, Jones Jr., Hopkins, Lennox, Wladimir, Hatton, JM Marquez, and many others. Rankings aside, does that list not say something about the quality and name value of their champions? As much as I often would prefer not to acknowledge any of the alphabet titles whatsoever, I disagree with that logic completely. It's absurd. As far as I'm concerned, Wlad is the undisputed HW champ based on his current ownership of the WBO, IBF, IBO and The Ring titles. The other 2 belts are held by his brother and a gigantic soon-to-be jailbird who can't box for shit. Thus, how could he possibly not be the undisputed champion? The same goes for Lennox, after he dropped the WBA belt. He simultaneously held the WBC, IBF and IBO belts, and was considered during that time to be the undisputed champion. Check the rankings and you'll surely find that IBO is the weakest of the bastards. I think you'll find yourself in a very tiny minority with your last paragraph.

If you check some independent rankings and list the champions of the governing bodies, you'll find that the IBO champs generally have the lowest ranked champions. What? I'll say it again, the IBO belt has been held by nearly every living great/top fighter within the past 15 years. Pacquiao, Jones Jr., Hopkins, Lennox, Wladimir, Hatton, JM Marquez, and many others. Rankings aside, does that list not say something about the quality and name value of their champions? As for undisputed, the general consensus is that undisputed means that you simultaneously are recognized as champion by WBA, WBC, IBF and WBO. The IBO does not (thankfully) enter this equation and it's complicated enough as it is. Mike Tyson is still the only undisputed champion who has won the major belts in seperate fights. As much as I often would prefer not to acknowledge any of the alphabet titles whatsoever, I disagree with that logic completely. It's absurd. As far as I'm concerned, Wlad is the undisputed HW champ based on his current ownership of the WBO, IBF, IBO and The Ring titles. The other 2 belts are held by his brother and a gigantic soon-to-be jailbird who can't box for shit. Thus, how could he possibly not be the undisputed champion? The same goes for Lennox, after he dropped the WBA belt. He simultaneously held the WBC, IBF and IBO belts, and was considered during that time to be the undisputed champion.

How so? All the best fighters of the past 15 years have held the IBO title, in many divisions. Some wouldn't even be called undisputed champion had they not held it at some point. If you check some independent rankings and list the champions of the governing bodies, you'll find that the IBO champs generally have the lowest ranked champions. As for undisputed, the general consensus is that undisputed means that you simultaneously are recognized as champion by WBA, WBC, IBF and WBO. The IBO does not (thankfully) enter this equation and it's complicated enough as it is. Mike Tyson is still the only undisputed champion who has won the major belts in seperate fights.

their champions is weaker than the 4 'premier' governing bodies. How so? All the best fighters of the past 15 years have held the IBO title, in many divisions. Some wouldn't even be called undisputed champion had they not held it at some point.