Where do you guys rate the IBO belt?

[BattlingNelson]

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.

[The_Demon]

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

[PittyPat]

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...

[BattlingNelson]

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...

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.

[PittyPat]

Maybe you are misinterpreting linear with undisputed?

I think it's silly for anyone to be that **** 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.

[BattlingNelson]

I think it's silly for anyone to be that **** 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.

[- v e t -]

i rate all belts the same....

****

[PittyPat]

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:

[BattlingNelson]

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.

[PittyPat]

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: