Talk:Undisputed championship (boxing)

"Undisputed" a misnomer

The proliferation of sanctioning bodies in the sport has made it virtually impossible for a boxer to become a true Undisputed Champion, as it would be necessary for a fighter to literally hold over a dozen titles simultaneously (those of the IBF, WBA and WBC, joined by titles recognized by the WBO, International Boxing Association, International Boxing Council, International Boxing Organization, World Boxing Federation, World Boxing Empire, and World Boxing Union; as well as "fringe" groups such as the National Boxing Association, the International Boxing Union, the Global Boxing Union and others). As a result, the term has become a misnomer of sorts — the Undisputed Champion is in fact, not undisputed, but is the boxer generally recognized as the best in his division. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs) 17:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Undisputed champion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080605161027/http://ca.encarta.msn.com:80/encyclopedia_761571782_5/Boxing.html to http://ca.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761571782_5/boxing.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Undisputed champion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070516095208/http://www.thesweetscience.com/boxing-article/3224/waiting-zab-judah/ to http://www.thesweetscience.com/boxing-article/3224/waiting-zab-judah/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Definition

"However, there are no officially declared necessary conditions needed to become an undisputed champion, as the major boxing organizations refer to all boxers holding at least two world titles in their respective division as "unified champions".[3][4][5]" - this paragraph should be deleted as it contradicts the entire page.

The term "undisputed champion" in boxing is a simple, universally accepted concept. A fighter can only be considered an undisputed champion if he or she holds all of the world titles from the major, mutually recognised sanctioning organisations. And they are the WBA, WBC, IBF and WBO. They are the only organisations that recognise each other's champions. Before the WBO world champions were recognised by the other three sanctioning bodies, only three belts-WBA, WBC and IBF-were needed to be recognised as an undisputed champion. Before the IBF was recognised by the WBA and WBC, it was only necessary to hold those two to be recognised as an undisputed champion. If a boxer only holds 3 of "Big four" world titles, he is universally considered a unified champion. Wladimir Klitschko, Anthony Joshua and Andy Ruiz Jr. are prime examples of this. They are not considered undisputed heavyweight champions by any reputable source.

There are updated and modern references that state what an "undisputed world champion" is, there are none from this decade to dispute this.

Sorry if I've brought this up in the wrong place or format, I'm new to the whole editing gig. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:AF3C:6600:30BD:47F9:FB37:C45A (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! This is the right place. If you want to know more about the format of talk pages, check out Help:Introduction to talk pages.

Even if the term "undisputed champion" was a universally agreed upon concept (It's not. Check out the first section on this page, for example.), it's important to explain that it is just a concept, not something in the regulations of the sanctioning bodies.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The "lineal champion" is also just a concept, and not something in the regulations of the sanctioning bodies. Regardless, the sanctioning bodies do not determine who is an undisputed champion, they have no say. The definition of the word 'undisputed' determines who the undisputed champion is - not disputed or called in question; accepted. "the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world". - quoted from Google definitions.

There are four main sanctioning bodies that exclusively recognise each other's champions. Those four - WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO - are universally recognised and ACCEPTED by every boxing outlet and expert as being the official/major/recognised world championships of boxing. If a fighter holds all four, then his championship status is undisputed, by every boxing outlet and expert.

What the sanctioning bodies' rules and regulations define as a 'unified champion' is completely irrelevant and pointless to note, you can't use that as an example to bring the term 'undisputed champion' into question when unified and undisputed are two completely different things. Hence there being a 'Unified champions' section.

There are hundreds of reputable and trusted sources from boxing outlets and experts that refer to the likes of Usyk, Crawford, Braekhus, Shields and Katie Taylor as being current or former undisputed champions. There will be none of the same that refer to Andy Ruiz Jr. as being an undisputed champion, because he only holds three of the four (universally accepted major, recognised, official world championship) belts needed to become undisputed. Squared.Circle.Boxing (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, "lineal champion" is also just a concept and, like that article does, this article should explain that an "undisputed champion" is only a concept, not something defined in the regulations of the sanctioning bodies. The "unified champion" material could be split in to an article of its own.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree, as long as it states that, in 2019, it is a universally accepted concept. I also agree that the "Unified champion" section should be an article of its own. Anybody else care to weigh in? ².O.^Boxing 16:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

How about "generally considered" or "widely accepted"?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Widely accepted seems a better choice. ².O.^Boxing 20:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The term was rarely used?

The History section says "the term was rarely used" Are we sure? Here is a front page from 1910 that uses it.-- Jahalive (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC) and another Daily press, Newport News, Va.--Jahalive (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)