Tweet
Great question. Answer: Stripping. Because the so-called Sanctioning bodies have overplayed their hand, and at Heavyweight, the public decides if a "Title belt" has meaning, or had been reasonably stripped or not.
All you can do to become "Undisputed" is to fight the best and remove any REASONABLE disputes. Rounding up all the belts is equivalent to knocking off the top 5 or 6 contenders, or in theory that should be it, but holding them all over any period of time, playing to 5 or 6 different silos of unique mandatory challengers, is no longer possible; as there are simply too many of them to placate for a champion, and they strip them from an active title holder for any reason they like.
So, if Fury, for example; where to beat Usyk for the WBA, WBO, IBF belts whilst defending his own WBC title, but the IBO decided they don't want to collect a sanctioning fee only every 5 or 6 title defense cycles, and they arbitrarily bestowed their title on the winner of say, Johnathan Rice vs. Joe Joyce.... Would that mean that the winner of the big tournament featuring Fury, Wilder, Usyk, Joshua and Zhang was not actually an "Undisputed" champion? Because the IBO says so?
Yes, actually; it would.
And what about the WBF, WBU, WPBF, IBO, IBF, IBC, IBA, IBU, GBC, WBF, UBO, GBU, UBF and IAB "world" heavyweight titles? Are they too "minor" to matter? Who gets to decide that? The promotional companies? The networks?
In truth they're ALL pretty "minor". Every one of them. Until recently, the WBA and WBC were the only two that anyone recognized. Then the IBF was formed by Bobby Lee, who soon after went to jail. It's gotten far out of hand with these crooks.
That's why those belts mean so little now, at heavyweight. the Man who beat the man, and occasionally the man who beat all those around him should the previous MAN retire as Champion and not come back, ala Tunney, Marciano, Lennox Lewis.
That's what you need to keep you eyes on. Nothing more. At heavyweight.
All you can do to become "Undisputed" is to fight the best and remove any REASONABLE disputes. Rounding up all the belts is equivalent to knocking off the top 5 or 6 contenders, or in theory that should be it, but holding them all over any period of time, playing to 5 or 6 different silos of unique mandatory challengers, is no longer possible; as there are simply too many of them to placate for a champion, and they strip them from an active title holder for any reason they like.
So, if Fury, for example; where to beat Usyk for the WBA, WBO, IBF belts whilst defending his own WBC title, but the IBO decided they don't want to collect a sanctioning fee only every 5 or 6 title defense cycles, and they arbitrarily bestowed their title on the winner of say, Johnathan Rice vs. Joe Joyce.... Would that mean that the winner of the big tournament featuring Fury, Wilder, Usyk, Joshua and Zhang was not actually an "Undisputed" champion? Because the IBO says so?
Yes, actually; it would.
And what about the WBF, WBU, WPBF, IBO, IBF, IBC, IBA, IBU, GBC, WBF, UBO, GBU, UBF and IAB "world" heavyweight titles? Are they too "minor" to matter? Who gets to decide that? The promotional companies? The networks?
In truth they're ALL pretty "minor". Every one of them. Until recently, the WBA and WBC were the only two that anyone recognized. Then the IBF was formed by Bobby Lee, who soon after went to jail. It's gotten far out of hand with these crooks.
That's why those belts mean so little now, at heavyweight. the Man who beat the man, and occasionally the man who beat all those around him should the previous MAN retire as Champion and not come back, ala Tunney, Marciano, Lennox Lewis.
That's what you need to keep you eyes on. Nothing more. At heavyweight.
actually, it'll be the People of LA county vs Deontay Wilder, unless he's able to settle out of court.
Comment