Why do fans/msm care about undisputed so much?I thought Belts mean nothing

[kushking]

I have 1 argument that I consider checkmate,Usyk won Undisputed in 16 fights,& he won it by beating,Gassiev,then defended vs Tony Bellew. Tony Bellend was 1 fight away from undisputed

I view Usyk beating Bellew for undisputed as meaningless as Canelo beating a Plant

[TernceBudCharlo]

Bellew had a belt when he fought Usyk? I thought he won undisputed versis Gasiev.

[kushking]

Bellew had a belt when he fought Usyk? I thought he won undisputed versis Gasiev.

You're right,but my point remains. He faced Bellend afterwards because Bellew was being hyped like Plant

[TernceBudCharlo]

You're right,but my point remains. He faced Bellend afterwards because Bellew was being hyped like Plant

I don't think it was a meaningless win but it wasn't this fantastic accomplishment either. I don't think Gassiev was an elite fight by any means but he was coming off of a great win over Dorticos. It was a very good win for Usyk, not a great win, but a very good win just like Plant would be for Canelo or Indongo for Bud. Probably the best of the 3 although not by much.

[kushking]

I don't think it was a meaningless win but it wasn't this fantastic accomplishment either. I don't think Gassiev was an elite fight by any means but he was coming off of a great win over Dorticos. It was a very good win for Usyk, not a great win, but a very good win just like Plant would be for Canelo or Indongo for Bud. Probably the best of the 3 although not by much.

I didn't need to see Usyk beat Gassiev to know hed beat him.(give him credit, understand why they fought etc) I don't need to see Canelo v Plant to know Canelo destroys him.(yes I would give Canelo credit,but he wouldn't prove anything he hasn't yet to me)

i didn't need to see Bud beat Indongo to know hed destroy him.

[QballLobo]

It’s a good marketing tool. Guy has all the titles he is the undisputed man at that weight. If your not following boxing outside the big mainstream fights it’s an easier sell.

[Zaryu]

Undusputed is an objective accomplishment that shows you're the bona-fide top dog in the division. If there's another titlist on your weightclass then people can argue you're not the best (hence being a disputed champion vs undisputed)

[kushking]

Undusputed is an objective accomplishment that shows you're the bona-fide top dog in the division. If there's another titlist on your weightclass then people can argue you're not the best (hence being a disputed champion vs undisputed)

As I said, It would mean that to me IF the beltholders were the actual best,& most importantly IF a undisputed champ actually went on to keep the belts until dethroned vs the best. (I don't rate big stiff Frankenstein,chips & queso Benevidez as a threat in comparison to who Canelos already beat,but I DO view him as a better opponent than Plant(same goes for Charlo at smw)

And I don't see the point in undisputed if Canelo will just drop the belts anyways or be stripped immediately by the IBF as ALWAYS for not fighting some no hoper that already was beaten his last fight.

[Marchegiano]

I honestly don't even understand your argument,so Lineal that takes into account who you beat & how dangerous to the best you're viewed as being,is a pos,but collecting 4 meaningless belts that are given out like participation awards mean something?

Heres why I find undisputed in the 4 belt era especially ******,even if a fighter manages to collect all the belts through luck(luck because often times it takes 2 fights to get undisputed,other times it takes several because of pos orgs joke rules)

Even if a fighter gets all 4 belts,theres ZERO chance of them keeping all 4 belts,even if they aren't looking for more belts in more divisions (like hw for example) so what tf was the point in that instance, especially if the belts were won vs paper champs during a lucky time your promoter has all the fighters with belts(Bud),& then you don't even defend those belts even once(almost every undisputed til now)

In Mikes era he won 3 belts & actually defended them,that would never happen in 4 belt era.

Lineal takes from bodies to justify itself because without body justification it makes no sense at all. It is in effect an alternative to the bodies that acts just like the bodies making it a totally pointless alternative.

That's very simple...you can try to pretend to be too ****** to fallow that as well but it's obviously very simple.

Meanwhile, there is an actual real WBC lineage. It's not made up bull****, it's an actual lineage. You can know every single champion who ever held a WBC belt or a pre-WBC belt that is represented presently by the WBC belt and that list of champions is inarguable. You can tell me Sam Langford was never a real HW champion, but, Sam Langford was the NSC world HW champion and that belt today is represented by Tyson Fury's green WBC title.

Conversely.

Get from Sully to Johnson without making up bull**** or stealing from body justification to justify why you picked one of multiple HW champions to call lineal champion. That lineage isn't even ****ing long, no one retired the belt so it should be straight forward, however, lineal is ****ing ****** so you can't even get to Fitzs without having a debatable list of champion.


Real justifications, real lineages, an actual process for determining champions VS semantics and made up bull****

[kushking]

Lineal takes from bodies to justify itself because without body justification it makes no sense at all. It is in effect an alternative to the bodies that acts just like the bodies making it a totally pointless alternative.

That's very simple...you can try to pretend to be too ****** to fallow that as well but it's obviously very simple.

Meanwhile, there is an actual real WBC lineage. It's not made up bull****, it's an actual lineage. You can know every single champion who ever held a WBC belt or a pre-WBC belt that is represented presently by the WBC belt and that list of champions is inarguable. You can tell me Sam Langford was never a real HW champion, but, Sam Langford was the NSC world HW champion and that belt today is represented by Tyson Fury's green WBC title.

Conversely.

Get from Sully to Johnson without making up bull**** or stealing from body justification to justify why you picked one of multiple HW champions to call lineal champion. That lineage isn't even ****ing long, no one retired the belt so it should be straight forward, however, lineal is ****ing ****** so you can't even get to Fitzs without having a debatable list of champion.


Real justifications, real lineages, an actual process for determining champions VS semantics and made up bull****

Sorry bro but you're not negating anything I said,I myself am not saying lineal is all that matters,

I'm saying that beating the highest rated,best resume champs in a weightclass while not getting all 4 belts,

should be enough to establish whos the real champ,& if the 4th beltholder is a paper champ who prices self out,it doesn't change that. And I'm also asking you,whats the pt in getting all 4 belts if you are automatically stripped by the pos IBF right away anyways?

And whats the pt in undisputed if nobody ever defends it anyways,& the min you become undisputed a bum who lost to who you beat,is once again a beltholder by default?

Undisputed in the 4 belt era is a joke. And at least Lineal needs to be lost in the ring.