Lineal Champ Vs Undisputed Champ Vs Div Champ Vs The Ring Champ

[extracurRICular]

I don't agree with that.

Jermain Taylor was the undisputed champion after he beat Hopkins(regardless how close the fights were or if you disagree with the decisions).
After that he got stripped of 2 of his 4 belts because he rematched Hopkins which were taken to Germany.
Even withou those 2 belts Taylor was still the undisputed champion for me because those belts are worthless.

I get what you are saying.....but you can't be undisputed if someone.....anyone has a share of the belt....that's the bottom line.....

[Chuckguy]

I get what you are saying.....but you can't be undisputed if someone.....anyone has a share of the belt....that's the bottom line.....

i HAVE TO disagree with you
If you have the JT situation for example like Cant stated
to me regardless of he has the belts he is still the man to beat.
antoher example is at 154 to me the lineal champ is still Martinez and he doesnt even have a belt

[catalinul]

I get what you are saying.....but you can't be undisputed if someone.....anyone has a share of the belt....that's the bottom line.....

Because?That's exactly a wrong mentality which the sanctioning bodies want you to have.

What did that belt even mean?80% of people didn't even hear of Abraham until 2006.

The belt means who pays for it.Being champion means you have to fight for it.

[extracurRICular]

i HAVE TO disagree with you
If you have the JT situation for example like Cant stated
to me regardless of he has the belts he is still the man to beat.
antoher example is at 154 to me the lineal champ is still Martinez and he doesnt even have a belt

Because?That's exactly a wrong mentality which the sanctioning bodies want you to have.

What did that belt even mean?80% of people didn't even hear of Abraham until 2006.

The belt means who pays for it.Being champion means you have to fight for it.

The word UNDISPUTED by definition means "without dispute" no one can dispute anything if you have all the belts....even if the value of each belt fluctuates or varies from belt to belt if anyone has any part or share of that weight div....they have something to dispute.....however minuscule it maybe....there is a dispute.....now if you hold all three belts.....NO ONE can say anything.....because there is nothing to dispute.....hence......UNDISPUTABLE Champ.....not saying it's right just saying that's how it is......if I had it my way I get rid of every single one of the alphabets and keep the Ring.....nothing more....

[Junito-Rulez]

WBA Champs all the way baby !!

[extracurRICular]

WBA Champs all the way baby !!

Umm.........oooooookay

[titanium]

Usually undisputed is thought of as lineal, unless the lineal champ was stripped of his title. Ring champ is just a clout thing and has little meaning.

[Chuckguy]

The word UNDISPUTED by definition means "without dispute" no one can dispute anything if you have all the belts....even if the value of each belt fluctuates or varies from belt to belt if anyone has any part or share of that weight div....they have something to dispute.....however minuscule it maybe....there is a dispute.....now if you hold all three belts.....NO ONE can say anything.....because there is nothing to dispute.....hence......UNDISPUTABLE Champ.....not saying it's right just saying that's how it is......if I had it my way I get rid of every single one of the alphabets and keep the Ring.....nothing more....

let me give you an example
lets say that Marinez wins all the belts at 160 except lets say the IBO and lets say Chavez Jr has that belt
I would still say that Martinez is the lineal champ because of the competition he has faced to get those belts
just because one guy has the belt doesnt mean he isnt lineal
Hatton was the lineal champ at 140 and I think he only had two belts

[catalinul]

The word UNDISPUTED by definition means "without dispute" no one can dispute anything if you have all the belts....even if the value of each belt fluctuates or varies from belt to belt if anyone has any part or share of that weight div....they have something to dispute.....however minuscule it maybe....there is a dispute.....now if you hold all three belts.....NO ONE can say anything.....because there is nothing to dispute.....hence......UNDISPUTABLE Champ.....not saying it's right just saying that's how it is......if I had it my way I get rid of every single one of the alphabets and keep the Ring.....nothing more....

That's just it....if you beat the man you are the man....without any dispute.

Lineal,undisputed,true,real,whatever you wanna call it that means you are the champion.

Lennox Lewis never had all 4 belts and he was undisputed.Barrera never had any belt and he was universally seen as the champ.
That's all that matters.
I don't care if someone won the vacant interim silver title and thinks he's the best because he hasn't beaten the guy whos the best.
Do you think the winner if Jacobs-Pirog can dispute who is the middleweight champion?

[Spray_resistant]

Isn't it really who the fans say is the man at a weight class regardless of whether they have any belts at all?

Suppose Berto collects the IBF and WBA from Zaveck and Senchecko, then Pac drops his WBO title or gets stripped for whatever reason. After that lets say Floyd and Pac fight, would anyone dispute the winner of that as the real WW champion just because a bunch of trinkets aren't on the line?

I wouldn't, the fighters and their wins make the champions not a bunch of trophies.