There’s a moment in boxing that never fails to give you goosebumps. The final bell goes, the ring announcer drags out the tension, and then the words boom across the arena: “And the undisputed champion of the world…”
Belts are draped over both shoulders, fans roar, cameras flash — and for a split second it feels like boxing has found its clarity. That was the scene when Terence Crawford made history at the weekend (my full breakdown here), just as Oleksandr Usyk did earlier this year at heavyweight. One king, no arguments. Or at least that’s the dream.
Because if you follow boxing long enough, you know the truth: the confetti barely hits the canvas before the arguments, mandatories and politics kick in. Being undisputed should bring peace — instead, it often brings chaos.
The puzzle of boxing politics
On paper it looks straightforward. Win a title, fight the other champions, and keep going until you’ve got all four. Simple, right? Wrong.
The problem is politics. You’ve got four sanctioning bodies, each with their own rules, rankings, and mandatory challengers. (Here’s how the world rankings actually work). Getting them to cooperate is about as easy as squeezing blood from a stone.
And it’s not just the governing bodies. Promoters and broadcasters muddy the waters further. One wants a rematch clause, another wants a stadium fight in a different market, another has a rival show scheduled the same weekend. The result? Delays, detours, and fans left tearing their hair out.
That’s why we end up with the belt mess I’ve written about before (boxing’s belt overload). Too many straps, too many interests, not enough clarity. Which is exactly why I’ve argued for one world, one champion. Until that day comes, undisputed will remain more fragile than it looks.
Fighters make business decisions too
It’s easy to point the finger at promoters and sanctioning bodies, but fighters have choices to make as well. And here’s the reality: if you’re offered £5 million to fight a crossover star that draws casuals, or £3 million to unify with another belt holder in a high-risk, low-reward fight… which one are you going to take?
Fans love to talk legacy, but fighters have short careers. One punch can change everything, one injury can end it all. Boxing is brutal — and as I’ve said many times before, in today’s game boxing is a business before it’s a sport.
That doesn’t mean fighters don’t care about greatness. It means that securing their family’s financial future often takes priority over chasing every last strap. And when you think about it, can you really blame them?
The short window to make history
Even for those who do want to be remembered as undisputed, the window is tiny. A single injury, a year stuck in contract disputes, or a mandatory that pulls you off course — and suddenly the moment has passed.
This is why fans sometimes only get one undisputed fight in a generation. It’s not that fighters don’t want it. It’s that the stars rarely align, and when they do, they don’t stay aligned for long.
The cost of holding all the belts
And then there’s the part people forget: money. Every belt comes with sanctioning fees. The more belts you hold, the more fees you pay. Crawford, Inoue, Usyk — they’re all multimillionaires, sure, but the bills add up.
When you’ve got four organisations all demanding their cut, undisputed doesn’t just mean glory. It means an ongoing financial burden that even the biggest stars notice.
The undisputed champion burden
So here’s the cruel irony. You fight through politics, promoters, injuries, and costs to finally be crowned undisputed. The fans cheer, the history books are updated, and you should get to enjoy it.
But within weeks, you’re back in the same mess. One body orders a mandatory, another threatens to strip, another invents an interim title, and suddenly the very thing that was supposed to clear the picture just adds to the chaos.
That’s what I call the undisputed champion burden. You climb the mountain, but you don’t get to plant your flag for long.
Final thoughts
For me, undisputed should mean what it says on the tin: one champion, no arguments. But until the politics, money, and business of boxing change, we’ll keep seeing the same cycle. Brief clarity, followed by the same old madness.
What do you reckon? Is being undisputed still worth the hassle, or is it just another layer of boxing’s chaos? Drop your thoughts in the comments, share this with a mate who loves to argue about belts, and check out more opinion and analysis over on CMBoxing.