Clean "undisputed" reign

[dan-b]

Who was the last fighter to hold "undisputed" status cleanly without there being 'interim', 'regular' and other nonsense belts in the same weight class? It's three-belt era at the latest.

The WBA started their 'regular' nonsense in 2001. Hopkins held "undisputed" status cleanly briefly after beating Trinidad but the WBA soon sanctioned Joppy - Eastman for the 'regular' belt. Hopkins admirably went to court to try to prevent this before eventually beating Joppy in the ring. I forget who the WBA sanctioned for a regular belt next (may have been Sam Soliman vs someone).

The WBA did similar to Tszyu, with Sharmba Mitchell holding the 'regular' belt. I forget also who was 'regular' 175 titleholder during Roy Jones' reign.

Pre 'regular' belt era, Lewis held the three belts cleanly after beating Holyfield, but this was brief as Lewis was forced to vacate the WBA by court order and never got to defend it in the ring. That story is a complicated one, but basically Akinwande was the WBA mandatory and he agreed to step aside to allow a Lewis - Holyfield rematch with the understanding he would fight the winner. With Akinwande eventually sidelined by hepatitis, John Ruiz was elevated to number one but not mandatory so Lewis argued he should be granted a voluntary. The WBA seemed inclined to agree but King went to court and Lewis ended up vacating. Thus initiating a farcical series of fights between Holyfield and Ruiz for a virtually worthless belt.

Going back further at heavyweight, the three belts were held together from when Tyson unified against Tucker to Bowe vacating the WBC. During the 80s, Hagler and Spinks had clean "undisputed" reigns at 160 and 175 respectively. Other notable "undisputed" champs include Sweet Pea and Donald Curry.

'Interim' titles have largely been an invention of the period 2000 onward. This seems to have been motivated by greed mostly, but I wonder why the sanctioning bodies were less inclined to do this previously.

[QueensburyRules]

- - Lewie chose to sell hisIBF/WBA to DKing for millions rather TBA s defend against a tricky lefty Byrd and stinker Ruiz, and later vacated WBC rather than rematch Vit for a career purse…yer welcome!!!

[markusmod]

Who was the last fighter to hold "undisputed" status cleanly without there being 'interim', 'regular' and other nonsense belts in the same weight class? It's three-belt era at the latest.

The WBA started their 'regular' nonsense in 2001. Hopkins held "undisputed" status cleanly briefly after beating Trinidad but the WBA soon sanctioned Joppy - Eastman for the 'regular' belt. Hopkins admirably went to court to try to prevent this before eventually beating Joppy in the ring. I forget who the WBA sanctioned for a regular belt next (may have been Sam Soliman vs someone).

The WBA did similar to Tszyu, with Sharmba Mitchell holding the 'regular' belt. I forget also who was 'regular' 175 titleholder during Roy Jones' reign.

Pre 'regular' belt era, Lewis held the three belts cleanly after beating Holyfield, but this was brief as Lewis was forced to vacate the WBA by court order and never got to defend it in the ring. That story is a complicated one, but basically Akinwande was the WBA mandatory and he agreed to step aside to allow a Lewis - Holyfield rematch with the understanding he would fight the winner. With Akinwande eventually sidelined by hepatitis, John Ruiz was elevated to number one but not mandatory so Lewis argued he should be granted a voluntary. The WBA seemed inclined to agree but King went to court and Lewis ended up vacating. Thus initiating a farcical series of fights between Holyfield and Ruiz for a virtually worthless belt.

Going back further at heavyweight, the three belts were held together from when Tyson unified against Tucker to Bowe vacating the WBC. During the 80s, Hagler and Spinks had clean "undisputed" reigns at 160 and 175 respectively. Other notable "undisputed" champs include Sweet Pea and Donald Curry.

'Interim' titles have largely been an invention of the period 2000 onward. This seems to have been motivated by greed mostly, but I wonder why the sanctioning bodies were less inclined to do this previously.

Originally the regular belt was only to be created when the normal WBA champion was unified or undisputed, but then they just gave it out in situations for no reason

[dan-b]

Originally the regular belt was only to be created when the normal WBA champion was unified or undisputed, but then they just gave it out in situations for no reason

It was a bad idea regardless. Imagine if all the sanctioning bodies did the same? For each "undisputed" champ you'd have four "regular" champs per division.

[Tatabanya]

'Interim' titles have largely been an invention of the period 2000 onward. This seems to have been motivated by greed mostly, but I wonder why the sanctioning bodies were less inclined to do this previously.

I think that "greed" goes hand in hand with "financial crisis", as we can easily see nowadays.

Specifically, I remember the years between 1999 and the first half of the 2000s as the beginning of a worldwide financial crisis which affected most fields (office jobs especially, I can speak for direct experience in that regard). Then, 2001 brought the consequences of 9/11 worldwide, effectively terminating any hope of (theoretical) financial balance most everywhere.

So my guess is that the sanctioning bodies did what they could to keep their financial power intact. Namely, stealing more money from the fighters by giving birth to all those meaningless belts, from which they earn milions to this day.

It's not too different from greedy politicians conceiving new absurd taxes whose weight typically affects ordinary people more than anyone else.

In my youth I was a long-distance friend with a well-known Mexican boxing judge, we exchanged a lot of fight tapes in the 90s. He was a lawyer coming from a wealthy family. Little by little I lost contact with him, but followed his "career" over the years. First he entered local politics and became an important figure in his area. Then one day I started finding him among the judges of several title fights. Just recently I discovered that he's now an esteemed member of WBA's directorate.

So you see, history always repeats itself. Money attracts money.

[markusmod]

It was a bad idea regardless. Imagine if all the sanctioning bodies did the same? For each "undisputed" champ you'd have four "regular" champs per division.

It was always a ****** idea, but then got out of control

[billeau2]

Who was the last fighter to hold "undisputed" status cleanly without there being 'interim', 'regular' and other nonsense belts in the same weight class? It's three-belt era at the latest.

The WBA started their 'regular' nonsense in 2001. Hopkins held "undisputed" status cleanly briefly after beating Trinidad but the WBA soon sanctioned Joppy - Eastman for the 'regular' belt. Hopkins admirably went to court to try to prevent this before eventually beating Joppy in the ring. I forget who the WBA sanctioned for a regular belt next (may have been Sam Soliman vs someone).

The WBA did similar to Tszyu, with Sharmba Mitchell holding the 'regular' belt. I forget also who was 'regular' 175 titleholder during Roy Jones' reign.

Pre 'regular' belt era, Lewis held the three belts cleanly after beating Holyfield, but this was brief as Lewis was forced to vacate the WBA by court order and never got to defend it in the ring. That story is a complicated one, but basically Akinwande was the WBA mandatory and he agreed to step aside to allow a Lewis - Holyfield rematch with the understanding he would fight the winner. With Akinwande eventually sidelined by hepatitis, John Ruiz was elevated to number one but not mandatory so Lewis argued he should be granted a voluntary. The WBA seemed inclined to agree but King went to court and Lewis ended up vacating. Thus initiating a farcical series of fights between Holyfield and Ruiz for a virtually worthless belt.

Going back further at heavyweight, the three belts were held together from when Tyson unified against Tucker to Bowe vacating the WBC. During the 80s, Hagler and Spinks had clean "undisputed" reigns at 160 and 175 respectively. Other notable "undisputed" champs include Sweet Pea and Donald Curry.

'Interim' titles have largely been an invention of the period 2000 onward. This seems to have been motivated by greed mostly, but I wonder why the sanctioning bodies were less inclined to do this previously.

Hard to say which is scary (the bolded). These belts are the equivalent of Charlie Z creating a belt. They divide and make boxing fans cynical and angry for good reason. The logical fallicy that you can have many world champions in a sport that thrived on bringing one heavyweight champion to the world, is replete with all the ugliness of expert beauticians putting lipstick on a pig, or three... People hate things like the Lineal, but I believe it has a certain purity, akin to when someone practicing a KoRyu Japanese martial art can trace direct succession and transmission in their art for sometimes over 400 years.

There just is truly no good reason to dilute something like a championship title. In baseball one can always demand that any league that purports to be the best, enter a contest to play the world series. The world series would not mean the same if the national and american league did not play for the championship and while baseball is played many places, no place would claim to be better than the best team in the world.

People just recognize greed and self serving syndicates too late. Even if you could subsume these titles under one, it would be better. Simple is good, to be the best, you have to beat the best.

[markusmod]

Hard to say which is scary (the bolded). These belts are the equivalent of Charlie Z creating a belt. They divide and make boxing fans cynical and angry for good reason. The logical fallicy that you can have many world champions in a sport that thrived on bringing one heavyweight champion to the world, is replete with all the ugliness of expert beauticians putting lipstick on a pig, or three... People hate things like the Lineal, but I believe it has a certain purity, akin to when someone practicing a KoRyu Japanese martial art can trace direct succession and transmission in their art for sometimes over 400 years.

There just is truly no good reason to dilute something like a championship title. In baseball one can always demand that any league that purports to be the best, enter a contest to play the world series. The world series would not mean the same if the national and american league did not play for the championship and while baseball is played many places, no place would claim to be better than the best team in the world.

People just recognize greed and self serving syndicates too late. Even if you could subsume these titles under one, it would be better. Simple is good, to be the best, you have to beat the best.

But Charlie is 350-0

[QueensburyRules]

Hard to say which is scary (the bolded). These belts are the equivalent of Charlie Z creating a belt. They divide and make boxing fans cynical and angry for good reason. The logical fallicy that you can have many world champions in a sport that thrived on bringing one heavyweight champion to the world, is replete with all the ugliness of expert beauticians putting lipstick on a pig, or three... People hate things like the Lineal, but I believe it has a certain purity, akin to when someone practicing a KoRyu Japanese martial art can trace direct succession and transmission in their art for sometimes over 400 years.

There just is truly no good reason to dilute something like a championship title. In baseball one can always demand that any league that purports to be the best, enter a contest to play the world series. The world series would not mean the same if the national and american league did not play for the championship and while baseball is played many places, no place would claim to be better than the best team in the world.

People just recognize greed and self serving syndicates too late. Even if you could subsume these titles under one, it would be better. Simple is good, to be the best, you have to beat the best.

- - Prob being Baseball is watered down with divisions and playoffs for a post season money grab.

Used to be the best AL team end of the season plays the best NL team straight up. Now it's possible for the best team of the season getting eliminated in one of the playoff games, ridiculous but endemic of modern culture.

Who with me? Who ag'in me?

[Willie Pep 229]

- - Prob being Baseball is watered down with divisions and playoffs for a post season money grab.

Used to be the best AL team end of the season plays the best NL team straight up. Now it's possible for the best team of the season getting eliminated in one of the playoff games, ridiculous but endemic of modern culture.

Who with me? Who ag'in me?

Bob Costas is with you.

Baseball is a wonderful past time. A beautiful day in the sun. But I can't watch it on TV, too slow.

One two games a year.