The term "undisputed" is nonsense

[dan-b]

We pretending undisputed means something besides owning the 4 main belts now?

Undisputed literally means no one is disputing your claim, which in a boxing context means your claim to the world championship in a division.

Assuming we get a winner between Fury and Usyk on May 18th, at that particular moment I think few would dispute the claim of either man to be world heavyweight champion (even when allowing for the WBA and WBO having secondary belt holders).

However, boxing is an ever evolving, dynamic landscape where absolute claims are impossible to hold for long if they're even possible in the first place. Even if the IBF doesn't strip Fury or Usyk someone would eventually dispute their claim to the throne. This is normal and expected.

Does anyone seriously think Canelo is an "undisputed" champion at this point, no matter how many times cheerleader journalists like Dan Rafael says so? There is huge dispute because hoarding belts will never trump beating your closest rival.

I think boxing fans should get comfortable with the inherent chaos within it. This search for absolutes (P4P, GOAT, lineal, undisputed) seems to be a modern obsession and not just limited to boxing. You can probably establish yourself as the best in a division for a while and that's a great enough achievement.

Tagging MoonCheese and billeau2 following discussion here because I think this is a thread worth reviving.

[kafkod]

The undisputed champion is the guy who holds all the championship belts.

Once you understand what the term means, it makes perfect sense.

[Elheath]

IMO Undisputed champion = the guy who currently owns/has owned all the belts of a division at the same time. I think having an unification match to establish the owner of all the belts to one guy is certainly important and meaningful, however for me what you choose to do AFTER you get "undisputed" status is what really matters. Once you collect all the belts, you should either go up to the next division up OR you should either continue fighting the next best guy available in the same division if you are staying. Choosing NOT to challenge the next level while staying picking and choosing the voluntary defense against obviously lesser opponents simply looks very...pathetic.

Canelo became "undisputed" at 168 in Nov 2021 by defeating Caleb Plant. The end of the year 2021 Ring rankings had Canelo as the "champion" and Benavidez as the No. 1 in the division. Since then, Canelo has had four matches where he:

• Lost to Bivol at 175. This match I actually give him credit as even though he lost, he did what an "undisputed" guy should do which was challenge the next division if he's not fighting the No. 1 of his current division aka Benavidez.
• Won UD the third match of the trilogy against washed up GGG, the "No. 1" of the division below him.
• Won UD against John Ryder, the annual Ring No. 3 (Benavidez No. 1) of 2022.
• Won UD against Jermell Charlo, the "No. 1" of TWO divisions below him.
• Will be fighting Mungia, who was No. 9 (Benavidez No. 1) for the annual Ring rankings of 2023.

Usyk, after he won the cruiserweight WBSS defended his undisputed status once then moved up to heavyweight and vacated them all. Things slowed down since then due to various uncontrollable factors but at least they are willing to consolidate all the belts at once by fighting, which is a start. After that whether he defends or starts to get stripped and others gets a chance, who knows but at least it will be better than a certain sleezy tub of lard continuing to keep them hostage.

Jermell, after giving somewhat of an effort to actually collect all the belts in 154, immediately cashed out by selling them all to Canelo for a money grab, and essentially retired without ever defending it. At this point everyone knows Tszyu is the actually true top guy in 154 right now. The fact that he hasn't been removed of his "Ring" champion status is stupid, but after he doesn't do crap this year again I guess he'll lose it.

Crawford, after having wasted away 8 months with the worthless rematch shenanigans thanks to Spence, is finally doing what he should've been doing by requesting to fight the winner of Tszyu/Fundora. Kinda wish he'd just drop the rest of the belts now, but hopefully by early April negotiations are completed he would do so and move on.

Haney became "undisputed" after he came by at the right timing to fight Kambosos twice, and kept his disputed "undisputed" status by fighting Loma. I personally think Loma should've won and a rematch with Loma would've been nice, but one thing Haney deserves some credit is that he actually fought Loma for a start, which is something the other belt holders of 135 can currently claim. Also, call him boring or lucky or disputed or whatever you want (because I think they are true), but he also deserves credit for moving along and actually fights. Sure, he probably couldn't make the weight anymore so he may have been forced to move up, but one thing for certain he at least fights other belt holders even if it is the lesser ones.

[Eff Pandas]

Undisputed literally means no one is disputing your claim, which in a boxing context means your claim to the world championship in a division.

Assuming we get a winner between Fury and Usyk on May 18th, at that particular moment I think few would dispute the claim of either man to be world heavyweight champion (even when allowing for the WBA and WBO having secondary belt holders).

However, boxing is an ever evolving, dynamic landscape where absolute claims are impossible to hold for long if they're even possible in the first place. Even if the IBF doesn't strip Fury or Usyk someone would eventually dispute their claim to the throne. This is normal and expected.

Does anyone seriously think Canelo is an "undisputed" champion at this point, no matter how many times cheerleader journalists like Dan Rafael says so? There is huge dispute because hoarding belts will never trump beating your closest rival.

I think boxing fans should get comfortable with the inherent chaos within it. This search for absolutes (P4P, GOAT, lineal, undisputed) seems to be a modern obsession and not just limited to boxing. You can probably establish yourself as the best in a division for a while and that's a great enough achievement.

Tagging MoonCheese and billeau2 following discussion here because I think this is a thread worth reviving.

Lol you think boxing fans AREN'T comfortable with the chaos? I think the fans who weren't ok with chaos are the ppl who quit being fans over the last several decades or have flipped to being casuals who will only show up when the big fights happen.

Idek why you are quoting my post in a whole other thread about a definition btw. But Undisputed in boxing wasn't even really a thing, afaik anyway, til all these corrupt belts came on the scene. It was just a redundant thing to call The Champion undisputed since being The Champion alone meant you were The Man. But since the belts came to being Undisputed has meant holding all the main belts from two, to three & now four. Even if someone was deemed the clear #1 guy, which is the main thing I gaf about ranking/belt-wise, if they didn't hold all the belts they would never be defined as Undisputed.

That said with all the belt & rankings bs I'd personally welcome Undisputed meaning something new since I think you can be #1 but have a huge threat disputing you for that #1 spot that's being ignored. As an easy example one could argue Canelo isn't Undisputed beyond the normal 4 belt definition of Undisputed with many, myself included, seeing David Benavidez as a massive threat thats being ignored & many would throw Morrell in that mix as well. And as mentioned I think you could argue there are 1 belt guys who are undisputedly the #1 guy like Roman Gonzalez was at one point back in the day.

But all that said the current definition of Undisputed is holding 4 belts.

[Toffee]

The undisputed champion is the guy who holds all the championship belts.

Once you understand what the term means, it makes perfect sense.

It's obviously more than that. It means that you hold all of the organisation's belts and therefore you are the undisputed champion of the world.

But the champion makes the belt, and the champion makes the undisputed status.

In boxing, things are only legitimate if the fighter's record makes it legitimate.

[kafkod]

It's obviously more than that. It means that you hold all of the organisation's belts and therefore you are the undisputed champion of the world.

But the champion makes the belt, and the champion makes the undisputed status.

In boxing, things are only legitimate if the fighter's record makes it legitimate.

The bolded has exactly the same meaning as the comment from me you responded to.

If a fighter holds all the championship belts in his division, then nobody else has any objective right to call himself a world champion in that division. That's all it means, really.

Whether or not an undisputed champ is actually the best fighter in his division, and whether he deserves to keep hold of his belts if he isn't defending them against the best contenders, are different issues.

[billeau2]

One way to look at it to make it an analogy to the gold standard versus a fiat currency. With a gold standard the value is the value of the asset underlying the currency. And a Fiat situation one can dilute the value of the currency considerably. The more of these groups exist the more the value of Undisputed becomes dilluted.