Haye was never undisputed champ at cruiser

But at the same time HOYA UK is saying that Holyfield didnt hold all the belts eaither so that means if Haye wasnt the Undisputed champ then neither was Holyfield.

 

I dont know if you are calzaghe fan but I made a similar thread rebuking claims that JC was a two weight world champ when in fact he had only one a magazine title at LHW. I think technically we a re both right but people on ESB seem to acknowledge certain titles more highly than others.

 

:huh Who are you?

The point is, Haye was "not undisputed" on a technicality, that same technicality can be applied to a dozen "undisputed champions". Including Holyfield. To me, if you have 95% of the Championship pie, then that is good enough to go around calling yourself undisputed. Maybe not "universally recognized" but certainly "undisputed".

 

So what you're really saying is, that Evander Holyfield was ducking Boone Pultz?

 

The Blade speaks truth: The term "undisputed" is thrown around in the wrong manner way too often. Sure Haye is the man who beat the man, but he is still NOT UNDISPUTED. Get it straight!

You need the original 3 titles: WBC, WBA, IBF to be undisputed.

We've had a lot of obnoxious Brits wrongfully using that term about their chinny hero.. all these people replying saying "You're wrong. He's undisputed" is ****in clueless.. beyond help

 

oi Blade.

In the next 10 years there will be a Top Rank belt, a WBG belt a BBW belt and a ABCBW belt. will the undisputed champion have to hold all of these belts in 10 years?

 

To be fair, Holyfield was a bad example. But there are plenty of other "undisputed champions" who didn't hold all the titles at the time in which they were considered "undisputed". (Roy Jones, Lewis, Hopkins, Calzaghe etc.). Like I said already though, I think if you have 95% of the Championship (I.e the WBC, WBA, WBO and The Ring titles, and you just beat the linear champion) like Haye, I'm not going to disagree when he calls himself the former "undisputed crusierweight champion", maybe on a technicality he wasn't entirely undisputed, but it is just a technicality.

 

Blade has a point here, technically seen Haye was never the undisputed champ. You're undisputed when the four major boxing organizations (WBC, IBF, WBA and WBO) reckon you as their champ. The IBF never held Haye as their champ. Simple as that. So Haye can't call himself the undisputed champ.

In the end, it doesn't really matter as it's just a detail. Haye was the true champ at CW after he beat Moremac and Maccaroni in the eyes of the boxing world, just like Jirov and Toney were the true champs at CW some years ago. Boxing organizations belts or rankings are most often irrelevant anyway. But technically he was not undisputed, that's a fact - exactly what Blade pointed out, it's not a hater thread, so chill out y'all...

 

I wonder what the Haters think of Kelly Pavlik, bearing in mind he won his title off the man who won his title off of Bernard Hopkins...

The IBF are the worst strippers in boxing.

 

Fine, but don't let me ever see you calling Mike Tyson the former "undisputed heavyweight champion" then. There are plenty of examples were at any one time a fighter didn't hold all the four belts, but was still regarded as undisputed.

 

he had every other alpha belt and the ring belt thats undisputed in my book