Which belts do you need to become undisputed champion

[grayfist]

Titles and unification are two different things.

You can rule the division by not holding a title, it happens all the time.

I agree. There have been times when the consensus best of a division was not even an alphabet-recognized champion.

After victories over Archie Moore, twice avenging his TKO loss to Lloyd Marshall with a 6 round KO and another KO in the 2nd, as well as settling a controversial SD loss to Elmer Ray by stopping Ray in the 9th in a subsequent fight, Ezzard Charles was widely regarded as THE class of the LightHeavies in the second half of the 1940's. He wore no official crown.

Archie Moore himself was so avoided, he didn't get a belt until past 30 years old, though he was considered the best in the early 50's.

When Marco Antonio Barrera was widely hailed as Featherweight king, he had none of the alphabet titles and only had the Ring belt, which was later taken from him by Manny Pacquiao. Thus, Pacquiao was regarded as "People's" Champ" even after the draw with Juan Manuel Marquez, who had alphabet belts.

The word, "undisputed", though, has often been disputed when attached to the word "champion". For as long as there are other champions holding other "world" belts, their existence constitutes a type of "dispute", though the disputation may amount to no more than a scantly audible whimper, best dealt with benign neglect.

[psychopath]

all four of 'em. only b-hop has held all four titles at the same time.

Exactly!

And if you got the four you're surely get the fifth, the ring belt.

That's what I call undisputed.

[Guest]

RING belt is all that matters...

[mECHsLAVE]

It depends on the division and the other world titles in that division. If you have a couple world titles, and the other two are vacant or interim, then sure you're undisputed. The Ring belt is the main belt that matters, with all the corruption involved with the sanctioning bodies these days.

For instance, Hopkins was able to be undisputed with four belts because he had a HBO contract and big fights planned (big purses = big sanctioning fees) so they didn't strip him, enforce meaningless mandatories, etc.

On the flip side, Michalczewski was stripped of his WBA and IBF belts the same week he won them, why? Because he was fighting over in Germany, and wasn't very popular, and with Roy Jones moving up to 175 the WBA and IBF wanted Roy to have them (an established superstar in boxing by that point, with a HBO contract), so they made them vacant and cleared a path for Roy. That's just one example of how your promoter and your contract will allow you to keep belts, or your lack thereof will cause you to be stripped. :-)

Fans know who the best fighters are. Forget the belts. 90% of the time RING is going to have their belt with the best fighter in the division, and they don't strip you of it over sanctioning fees or politics or otehr bull****.

[vze2hhvj]

for me it would mean all world titles

[.::|ULTIMATE|::.]

Technically you need all 4.

But for me the belts aren't necessary. You just have to beat the men that pose the threats, people demand you to fight, and create buzz. Once there is no one people are really demanding you to fight, then you really are undisputed champ of the division.

[Technical_Skill]

Technically you need all 4.

But for me the belts aren't necessary. You just have to beat the men that pose the threats, people demand you to fight, and create buzz. Once there is no one people are really demanding you to fight, then you really are undisputed champ of the division.

I dont think you need all 4, Lennox Lewis dropped the IBF belt but was still undisputed HW champ no?

[Eno]

The ring belt seems to be the one you need the most.

[PROD]

Hopkins was already the undisputed champion when he fought DLH. He became became so when he grabbed the WBC strap from Keith Holmes and the WBA strap from Trinidad in the middleweight unification tourney in 2001. He already had the IBF title.

Roy never had a WBO title.

I don't know how the WBO belt has become acceptable as a major world title in the last few years, but damn...3 is too many so 4 is waaay too many.

Fighters make the belts worth anything. There are cases where I like having multiple titles. The main one is when it gives a non-superstar fighter an identity and allows him to make good money.

Don't recognize the WBO title holders as champions. If so, Herbie Hide was one time the heavyweight champion of the world. That's not only depressing but ****ed.

I blame the lack of quality in the heavyweight division for the emergence of the WBO as something valuable in the minds of some of the newer or more naive boxing fans. 10 years ago the WBO title was a tool that mostly European promoters got for their fighters so they could call them world champion, but it's mostly a facade.

I'm not willing to say that Lamon Brewster and Sergei Lyakhovich once fought for the World Championship. I'm sorry.

edit: I should add that it is clear that one can be undisputed without having all the belts or having any belt. Case in point: Floyd Mayweather is the undisputed welterweight champ. Ricky Hatton is the undisputed jr welter champ. And so on...

But this is pretty basic stuff.