No undisputed HW champion since Mike Tyson

Your argument is sh*t. For one they didn't recognize each other until then and they aren't the ones who dictate what is legit and what ain't. I think I'll take champions like Bowe, Barrera and Hamed over the opinion of a rival organization and some dipsh*t poster. its fact, millenial. Its also a fact that all the guys you mentioned won other titles that gave them far more weight than than the wbo, which you failed to mentioned. so if fact is shyt to you, thats understandable, given your views.

Actually, Lewis defeated Harry Akinwande when he was WBO champ way back in 97. However, the WBC wouldn't allow for a unification because they didn't value the WBO, so he dropped it. But if they did, Lewis would have been unified WBC and WBO champion going into the fight with Holyfield who was the IBF and WBA champion and thus crowning the undisputed champ of all 4 world titles.

WBO was finally fully recognised by the all other bodies by 2005, so anyone saying they were fully acknowledged before then, is saying that the IBF, WBA and WBC are full of shyt. Not the greatest argument to mount but good luck with it. Your argument is sh*t. For one they didn't recognize each other until then and they aren't the ones who dictate what is legit and what ain't. I think I'll take champions like Bowe, Barrera and Hamed over the opinion of a rival organization and some dipsh*t poster.

wbo was the wbu of today in the 90s. only a loopo would argue that someone with all the belts waastn undisputed because he didnt have the wbu one.

I actually read a piece on this myself yersterday, by the always good Ronald McIntosh. Maybe the same article? I haven't seen Showtime's comments yet, I'll have to look them up. ................. The battle for undisputed Ronald McIntosh on the history of the undisputed heavyweight championship of the world THE ideas of lineage, legitimacy and legacy, concepts that are crucial corner posts of the rich history of the Noble Art, have been tossed into turmoil, resulting in a frank exchange of views on social media between Hall of Fame inductee Lennox Lewis and Showtime Boxing, one of the sport’s leading broadcast outlets. Their opposing outlooks may be summarised thus: Lennox Lewis states that he’s the last man to hold the undisputed heavyweight championship of the world, a widespread view among boxing aficionados and respected publications. Showtime, however, contend that Mike Tyson is the world’s last undisputed heavyweight champion, a perspective also shared by some historians. And so, once again the sport of boxing and its custodians struggle to find consensus. Alternative interpretations of the same history have resulted in a standoff as intense as the pre-fight stare-down between Sugar Ray Leonard and Wilfred Benitez. But closer examination of heavyweight pugilism’s turbulent past reveals that consensus is relatively rare and chaos closer to the norm. The belt once regarded as the richest prize in sport has been dumped in a dustbin (by Riddick Bowe), awarded retroactively without a title fight taking place (Ken Norton bequeathed the WBC strap), and won by a fighter writhing in agony from a foul (Max Schmelling v Jack Sharkey I). The confusion and lack of clarity and surrounding the man who would be king is perhaps a fair reflection of the splintered nature of the boxing business, which stands at stark odds with the simplicity of the sport. Showtime’s stance – that Tyson is the last undisputed heavyweight champ by virtue of the fact that he held all of the available belts – also poses some philosophical points for us to ponder. Does the belt make a champion, the fighter make the belt, or is “the man who beat the man” the rightful ruler of a division? Is there, should there, be a distinction between a “belt holder” and a “champion”? In March 1999, I travelled to the boxing Mecca of Madison Square Garden in New York City to watch Lennox Lewis battle Evander Holyfield for the heavyweight championship of the world. The bout was billed as “Undisputed” by the event promoters, as the victor would be declared as the first undisputed world heavyweight champion since Riddick Bowe some seven years earlier. There were few dissenting voices about the promotional tag line, which adorned the official fight programme and an abundance of associated merchandise. Ultimately, the fight would be declared a draw, a somewhat contentious verdict where opprobrium centred on the scorecard of judge Eugenia Williams. Williams scored the fight 115-113 for Holyfield, including what appeared to be a dominant fifth round for Lewis in favour of the “Holy Warrior”. Seven months later, I was at the Thomas & Mack Centre in Las Vegas to see WBC champion Lewis prevail in the rematch by unanimous decision, thus claiming Holyfield’s WBA and IBF straps to achieve his ambition of becoming the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world (he also had the vacant IBO belt conferred on him after his win). Lewis was even announced as “the Undisputed Heavyweight Champion of the World” by master of ceremonies Jimmy Lennon Jr as he delivered the result. Showtime, however, declare that Lewis’s win over Holyfield didn’t make him undisputed King of the heavies, because Vitali Klitschko held the WBO belt. This view significantly alters the course of boxing history and lineage. The WBO was formed in 1988. Unlike the IBF – which gained a measure of immediate credibility by recognising Larry Holmes, the lineal champ and world’s best heavyweight, as their first heavyweight titlist in December 1983 shortly after he relinquished the WBC belt following a dispute – the WBO proclaimed that the winner of Francesco Damiani versus South Africa’s Johnny DuPloy would be their inaugural Heavyweight Champion. Italy’s Damiani, the super-heavyweight Olympic silver medallist from 1984 and European champion, uncorked a combination punctuated by a final left hook to win by a third round kayo and claim the vacant WBO crown in May 1989. But with Mike Tyson holding the WBC, WBA and IBF belts, Damiani’s WBO title was widely dismissed as an irrelevance. He was a titlist, but he wasn’t The Champ. While Showtime’s position is crystal clear, what remains ambiguous is exactly when the WBO belt became a necessary component of the status of being an undisputed champion. Certainly the WBO title has acquired more gravitas over time, especially when one considers some of the outstanding champions who have held the organisation’s title. But has it been endowed with such authority since its inception? When Tyson lost to James “Buster” Douglas in February 1990 in Tokyo, in what still ranks among the biggest boxing upsets of all time, was Douglas regarded as anything other than the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world because of the fact that he wasn’t in possession of Damiani’s WBO belt? Applying Showtime’s perspective to other weight classes, which point should be picked as the genesis of Bernard Hopkins’ reign as undisputed middleweight world champion? When he stopped Felix Trinidad in the 12th round of their emotionally-charged unification clash in September 2001, or three years and four defences later, when he immobilised Oscar De La Hoya with a body shot to take the Golden Boy’s WBO title, adding them to his WBC, WBA and IBF belts? Suffice to say, this extrapolation can be applied to every weight class in the sport. Once it is, then conversations concerning the course of championship history in other divisions become discordant, as well. But back to the heavyweights, Showtime’s stance also removes other great boxers from the mantle undisputed championship status at a stroke, namely the aforementioned Douglas, Holyfield and Riddick Bowe. Using empirical evidence, Showtime is correct in that a heavyweight belt existed outside of Lewis’ grasp. But is applying today’s sensibilities, when the WBO is recognised as a legitimate governing body, to a time when it patently was not, an exercise in revisionism? Tournament-style boxing has long been regarded as a countermeasure to the confusion created by a profusion of champions. In 1967, The WBA constructed an eight-man tournament to find their world heavyweight champion after Muhammad Ali was stripped of the title for refusing induction to the US Army as a conscientious objector. Jimmy Ellis emerged as the WBA champion. He would go on to be kayoed by Joe Frazier, who finally won universal recognition as the undisputed heavyweight champ when he dropped and defeated Ali in the Fight of the Century in March 1971. Nearly 20 years later, another heavyweight tournament was created in a bid to crown an undisputed champion. The brainchild of broadcasters HBO and ebullient promoters Don King and Butch Lewis, a prime Mike Tyson beat Tony “TNT” Tucker in the final to claim Tucker’s IBF Title in August 1987, adding them to his WBC and WBA belts. Lineal recognition as “the man who beat the man” came in June 1988, when Tyson steamrolled Michael Spinks in just 91 seconds; the end of days for undisputed heavyweight champions, according to Showtime’s assertion. The World Boxing Super Series is the latest incarnation of a global boxing tournament aiming to bring coherence to the crowded world title scene. In the cruiserweight division, a singular, undisputed champion will emerge when Oleksandr Usyk and Murat Gassiev do battle later this year. Anthony Joshua and Joseph Parker contested a heavyweight unification bout in Cardiff, but the undisputed title still remains fractured, as Deontay Wilder is the WBC bigwig. But which lineage will any newly crowned, undisputed heavyweight champion be a descendent of? That of Lewis, Holyfield, Bowe, Douglas and Tyson, or the one which currently ends at Kid Dynamite? With the opposing positions of both Showtime Boxing and Lennox Lewis seemingly firmly entrenched, it appears that anything approaching agreement regarding heavyweight history will be a matter for opinionated discussion and animated debate, rather than definitive facts and categorical conclusions. Variations of the classic barbershop scene from the movie “Coming to America” look set to be continued for a long time to come.

I read an article that Showtime is peddling this shit. Anyone here that doesnt think Lennox Lewis/Riddick Bowe/Evander Holyfield/Buster Douglas werent Undisputed HW champs? lol I didnt even know that, thats bs. Everyone thought of Holy (then Bowe that beat him) and Lewis as undisputed. Are they saying Lewis wasnt undisputed because of the WBO belt?

If the WBO wasnt recognized the way it is today then these champions have the right to believe and tell people that they were the heavyweight champion of the world un-disputed.

I agree with the Tyson, Douglas, Holyfield and Bowe but by the time Lennox was the man the WBO was relevant. Anybody acting like it was a joke any where after 1995 is full of sh*t. WBO was finally fully recognised by the all other bodies by 2005, so anyone saying they were fully acknowledged before then, is saying that the IBF, WBA and WBC are full of shyt. Not the greatest argument to mount but good luck with it.

there is such a thing though as fairly undisputed, even though that not quite the same as fully undisputed. Lennox was pretty much fairly undisputed. LIkewise Wlad managed to become fairly undisputed in the last years of his reign, though through some of the most pathetic opposition in history except for Pedvetkin and Haye. Unfortunately it was his undoing, as he wasnt cut out to rule a division alone, the first live opponent who came along exposed him. BY then it was too late for Vitali to come in and save him. Still, two brothers flitting in and out of the titles for 2 decades is still a remarkable achievement in longevity, even if they couldnt really cut it alone.

I agree with the Tyson, Douglas, Holyfield and Bowe but by the time Lennox was the man the WBO was relevant. Anybody acting like it was a joke any where after 1995 is full of sh*t.

Showtime's analysts couldn't admit they made a mistake. Never get your sources from someone too arrogant to admit they don't know something or own up to a mistake. Did they really fail to apologize? Damn. I hate that team they have now. I'm not a network fanboy but I'll look for a British steam before I listen to that showtime squad.

Showtime's analysts couldn't admit they made a mistake. Never get your sources from someone too arrogant to admit they don't know something or own up to a mistake.

Showtime went full retard by doubling down on their clear error. So if fringe belts matter then I guess we won't have an undisputed champion until Joshua or Wilder pick up the IBA, IBU and WBF belts. WBO was a mickey mouse belt back in the Lewis' era, hell I still regard it as a 2nd tier belt at heavyweight.

I read an article that Showtime is peddling this shit. Anyone here that doesnt think Lennox Lewis/Riddick Bowe/Evander Holyfield/Buster Douglas werent Undisputed HW champs? Huh? Herbie Hide in the revisionist vein that Showtime is using is now a 2 time heavyweight champion. Then how long will it be until the "Dancing Disaster err Destroyer" has his plaque in Canastota?

I think Showtime meant that Mike Tyson-Tony Tucker was the last HW unification bout where both fighters were undefeated. Lewis already had a loss when he unified against Hollyfield.

Literally using the Trump media method

Nope and Lennox called them out over twitter too about it. They said they respect him but disagree with him because their "historian and analyst" who also works as a commentator for ****ing WWE.. thinks the WBO belt actually meant diddly **** in 1999 Yeah he went HAM on Showtime. So apparently @ShowtimeBoxing thinks they can rewrite history, by writing champions like myself, Bowe, Douglas and Holyfield out of it, by saying there hasn’t been an undisputed champion since @MikeTyson in 1999. I personally recall facing @holyfield for that honour TWICE. pic.twitter.com/zYbvwPlqeQ— Lennox Lewis (@LennoxLewis) March 20, 2018 As a fighter, being the undisputed champion was my ONLY goal. Fight the best to be the best. That was the legacy I fought my whole career for. So don’t think I’ll take it lightly when @ShowtimeBoxing tries to take that away from me or anyone else who deserves that honour!— Lennox Lewis (@LennoxLewis) March 20, 2018 And for @ShowtimeBoxing to try to defend their error instead of admitting ur mistake, only goes to show the lack of knowledge and willingness to do their homework. It’s almost as if there is some other agenda going on here. 🤔🤔— Lennox Lewis (@LennoxLewis) March 20, 2018 . @ShowtimeBoxing the WBO belt was not a major or coveted belt in my days. I could have lifted it from John Ruiz had i ever believed that my status as an undisputed champion would ever be called into question. If ppl covet that belt in 2018, so be it... but not in my day!— Lennox Lewis (@LennoxLewis) March 20, 2018 .@ShowtimeBoxing The politricks of my era and the amount of Mickey Mouse belts made it difficult to impossible to own every single fringe belt there was at the time, so I only focused on fighting the best of the best and collecting the major belts of the time.— Lennox Lewis (@LennoxLewis) March 20, 2018 You can’t say with “great respect” to me and then tell me, of all ppl, the WBO belt meant something in my era. Especially for a belt that dropped its champions for taking on the best fighters. I wasn’t checking for Herbie Hide.. i was looking for fights @holyfield & @MikeTyson https://t.co/sCwH30lR2H— Lennox Lewis (@LennoxLewis) March 20, 2018 So if @ShowtimeBoxing’s “research team” wants a new talking point to hype an upcoming fight, they need just say so, but don’t try to rewrite history on a technicality that no one recognizes but them. In an era of fake news, this stuff matters!— Lennox Lewis (@LennoxLewis) March 20, 2018 My point of contention in this whole thing is that not only did @ShowtimeBoxing get it wrong, but then they doubled down on it. I fought 4 glory & legacy first.. @ShowtimeBoxing has started the process of eroding that legacy thru a revisionist lens. I can’t be silent about that!— Lennox Lewis (@LennoxLewis) March 20, 2018 HBO was trying to have it both ways. Bringing Naseem Hamed to the US in '97 and recognizing his WBO belt as a "world championship," but then suddenly two years later trying to crown an "undisputed champion" without the WBO belt. It was a very hypocritical time when it came to the WBO belt. I personally don't recognize the WBO, so I definitely considered Lewis the undisputed champion when he unified the WBC, WBA and IBF, but Showtime does have an interesting point about these so called undisputed champions that didn't hold the WBO even though the same network was recognizing the WBO title as a world championship. Prince Naseem was the man back in the day.This Kelly fight was insane , but this interview Hamed had swag back then.The interview is great "I'm gonna knock him spark out !!!!! " " I'm gonna knock you spark out" "relax, relax baby you gonna get knocked out" Lmfao

No. They were undisputed just as you say. Showtime should know better.

I read an article that Showtime is peddling this shit. Anyone here that doesnt think Lennox Lewis/Riddick Bowe/Evander Holyfield/Buster Douglas werent Undisputed HW champs? Well none of them held all 4 belts. Though Tyson held 3 when they were only 3 for two years. Undisputed champ could be defined as holding the main 3 IBF, WBA and WBC which makes all 4 of them undisputed champ.

HBO was trying to have it both ways. Bringing Naseem Hamed to the US in '97 and recognizing his WBO belt as a "world championship," but then suddenly two years later trying to crown an "undisputed champion" without the WBO belt. It was a very hypocritical time when it came to the WBO belt. I personally don't recognize the WBO, so I definitely considered Lewis the undisputed champion when he unified the WBC, WBA and IBF, but Showtime does have an interesting point about these so called undisputed champions that didn't hold the WBO even though the same network was recognizing the WBO title as a world championship.