Haye was never undisputed champ at cruiser

He unified at the weight but was never the undisputed champ.

 

In order to be the undisputed champ you have to hold the four major belts (There is no, "in my book", that is fact and the definition of what Undisputed means).

 

Ok, if you have 95% of the Championship, can anyone credibly DISPUTE that you are the champion of that division? and why is this technicality only being applied to David Haye?

 

Technicalities and semantics, who gives a ****. he would have KO'd that ass all day long.

Hell if a former lightheavyweight can floor hiss ass then Haye who has HW power would have knocked him the **** out!

 

what about the WPBF? the fact is there are so many different organizations you will technically ever have an undisputed champion. But as far as undisputed champion holding the majority of the belts and beating the best guys you can have one. I know what you saying.. Haye looses out on a technicality, but its a stupid technicality, and soon you will have to win IBF, WBA, WBC WBO, WBU, IBO, IBA, WPBF and the LMNOP belt to be undesputed champion it's rediculous.

 

No it's not a technicality you simply have to hold the 4 major titles the other are irrelevant.

How can you be undisputed champ when the no 1 contender in the division still holds one of the major three belts. That is not undisputed.

 

i never said that.

but hell it just takes common sense.

and like i said people on here get way too caught up with semantics, far far too much!

 

Haye himself stated that Cunningham was a far superior fighter to WBO trinket holder Enzo.

 

HAHA

one says 4

the other says 3

whose to say you don't need 8?

 

why do you discount the WBO?

so everyone who holds the WBO is thus made negligible to the 'undisputed' crown!?

 

Personally, I don't recognize the IBF.

I do really, I'm just pointing out that its easy to "not recognize" a certain sanctioning body when that helps to make a rather dubious point.

 

It is semantics. When Haye had 95% of the Championship, could anyone really dispute that he wasn't actually the Champion?

 

Yes, I did that on purpose because of the weakness of the WBO trinket which Haye held. You have to hold 4, but of the big 3 Haye held two.

Those are rules, and the way they have been for a long time. It is indisputable.

Boxing fans have to argue about anything, even things set in stone.

 

Being undisputed champ means that there isn't a recognised world title held by anyone else.

 

You need the WBU, IBO, IBA and WPBF belts to be truly undesputed champion, they will be as recongisable as the WBO in 10 years