WBA,WBC,IBF=Undisputed Champ?

**Verstyle** · 06-11-2006, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by Mike Tyson77

WBA 1962
WBC 1963
IBF 1983
WBO 1989
IBO 1992

These are the top five world titles and the years they where started. There is also, WBF,IBC,NBA,IBA, and a few others I cant think of that are considered "lesser" world titles.

So I want to know, do you have to have all five now to be the undisputed champ? Or still just WBA,WBC,IBF? I think most people value the belts in the order they are in the top. So what are your alls opinion on all these belts. And why can't these organizations work together to have an undisputed champ? Dont they know that would be bigger money?

come on now u should know only the top 3

**Mike Tyson77** · 06-11-2006, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by versatile2k6

come on now u should know only the top 3

Ya I know, but over the years the WBO and IBO have become major players in Boxing.

Good example is right now. Hopkins is the Light Heavyweight Champ, he has the IBO and NBA belts. NOT the WBC or WBA or IBF. So let's say someone gets the WBC,WBA,IBF, is he undisputed? Cuz everyone right now says Hopkins is champ.

**Verstyle** · 06-11-2006, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by Mike Tyson77

Ya I know, but over the years the WBO and IBO have become major players in Boxing.

Good example is right now. Hopkins is the Light Heavyweight Champ, he has the IBO and NBA belts. NOT the WBC or WBA or IBF. So let's say someone gets the WBC,WBA,IBF, is he undisputed? Cuz everyone right now says Hopkins is champ.

yeah that guy is undisputed but wont really be recognized as the real champ jus have the belts

**The_One77** · 06-11-2006, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by Mike Tyson77

Ya I know, but over the years the WBO and IBO have become major players in Boxing.

Good example is right now. Hopkins is the Light Heavyweight Champ, he has the IBO and NBA belts. NOT the WBC or WBA or IBF. So let's say someone gets the WBC,WBA,IBF, is he undisputed? Cuz everyone right now says Hopkins is champ.

It didn't matter if Bernard won the WBF belt, the point is that Bernard beat 'The Man' at LHW which was Tarver..
Clinton Woods may of had the most recoqnized belt (WBC) but that didn't mean he was the best....
All these alphabelt belts are useless if an unknown crap champion is holding it....He may have the belt but he is not recoqnized as the champion in the division

**The_One77** · 06-11-2006, 06:59 PM

WBO is a real belt by the way
IBO is worthless

**Southpaw Stinger** · 06-11-2006, 07:03 PM

The ring belt is what really matters if your looking for undisputed champs.

**mECHsLAVE** · 06-11-2006, 09:08 PM

IBO is not a real belt and never will be the way they rank and declare champions.

WBO has become a real belt in the past decade I'd say, but I still think that if a fighter unifies three world titles he is undisputed. Getting the fourth, whether it's the WBO or WBA or whatever, is just icing on the cake.

**neils7147933** · 06-12-2006, 04:15 AM

The WBA's "super champ" mess has made it less credible. I rarely hear about the IBO. The only truly "undisputed" champ in recent memory is when Hopkins, then Taylor held the WBA, WBC, IBF, and WBO at the same time. Michael Buffer puts it best when he calls it "universally recognized" when someone doesn't have an alphabet title but the writers and fans know what's up. The Ring Magazine championship means more than an alphabet title anymore.

**Soda_Popinski** · 06-12-2006, 04:48 AM

All I know is that total reform of the belts needs to take place...I've been thinking hard on this subject for the past 5 minutes and here is what ive come up with....

3 "World Championship" Belts per division (for history's sake we will keep the current names)

"WBA"- "The Man" in the division
"WBC"- World Champ
"IBF"- World Champ

Now this could get slightly confusing, but if you read carefully it makes perfect sense, and i feel it to be VERY fair to all parties involved...

Having one of these 3 belts gives said boxer the right to declare themselves "World Champ"...

The "Undisputed" claim could be declared if said fighter controls ALL 3 of those belts at the same time...

If said "Undisputed Champ" looses a fight the new champ keeps the "WBA" title and the other two become vacant...

The First defense by the new champ must be given to the "old" champ if the fight was competitive or controversial...the only exception is the "trilogy rule"

If said "old" champ regains title...A Third fight is mandatory as first defense...The 3rd fight is the end all, niether is mandated to fight the other again (trilogy rule)

Within 6 months of the other two belts becoming vacant a tournament must be setup for each vacant belt...8 fighters 4 mathces 2 champions

The winner of each of these belts must make 1st defense against the new "WBA" champ (the one who beat the undisputed champ)...UNLESS they are fighting a trilogy fight, in that case their first respective defenses will be against each other with the winner making his 1st defense against the "WBA" champ to unify...

Lesser Titles (these will make up 4 of the 8 fighters in "tournaments" for vacant belts)

Intercontinental- #1 contender
North American Champion- #1 fighter from NA
European Champion- #1 Fighter from Europe
Far East/Asian Champion #1 fighter from Asia

much fewer rules regarding mandatories at the "lesser title" level to allow for more shake-ups...

Soda

WBA,WBC,IBF=Undisputed Champ?