Haye was never undisputed champ at cruiser

I think it is,

if a scenario ever happened where a fighter had WBC,WBA,IBF,WBO and to top it off the ring belt, but then vacated one belt, say WBC to please you!

and for the months or weeks that belt was vacated with no champion (whilst the fighters fighting for the vacant belt were training for the fight, lets say)

then according to you he would not be the undisputed as one belt, which he gave up, was not his. Even tho there is one champ!?

But we would all know he was undisputed, lineal, no.1 what ever .......

 

So Kelly Pavlik has 1 Title according to you!? Bull****!

 

What about the IBO , WBF and IBC belts. Does a fighter need these to be technically undisputed in the literal sense? If not then it is just becoming a matter of consensus and subjective opinion.

 

I think "undisputed" means that no sane person can dispute you are the champion.

Could any sane person really dispute that Haye, the liner champ, the guy who held the wbo, wbc, wba and ring titles, WASN'T the Champion? That would be crazy, hence Haye being credited as "undisputed" because it was beyond dispute that he was the Champ.

 

The IBF is the jobber belt you get more cash for the WBO.

 

Cunningham won a vacant belt. He was not a champion, he was a belt holder. Haye did not need to beat him to be undisputed. You dont need all the belts to be undisputed, you are undisputed when all knowledgeable and reputable persons/bodies don't dispute you. No one, barring Cunningham/hayeters disputed him.

 

It's pretty obvious that you don't understand that "undisputed" isn't a physical belt, it a title generally given to the fighter who is beyond dispute the champion of their division. Jones Jr, Mike Tyson, Lennox Lewis, Joe Calzaghe, Bernard Hopkins....all at one point or another did not hold all the world titles simulataneously...but their status as the champions of their respective divisions was beyond dispute, so they were regarded as undisputed champions. Same applies to Haye, he was CLEARLY the Champion, it was beyond dispute.

 

I don't dispute that Haye was the champ, he was the unified champ.

...but the fact is in order to be the undisputed champ you have to hold all 4 belts. That is the way it is and it is fact.

Also Cunningham was a tricky costumer no doubt, and holding onto one of the three big major belts. Haye would more than likley win, but it was no given.

Don't forget also, all haye did to pick up those belts was beat Mormeck (who himself unified), and then Enzo who lets be honest isn't very good.

 

There are several problems with this post. First off, Cunningham nver won a vacant belt. He beat the IBF champ to get his belt. Second, Cunningham was supposed to fight Bell when Bell was the undisputed champ. Bell refused and was stripped of his IBF belt(he fought no one for over a year). Third, traditionaly, the undisputed champ is the guy who holds all thre major belts(IBF,WBA,WBC), and is also the lineal champ.

 

Who made this rule that WBC, WBA and IBF are the major belts? Why is the IBO not a major belt when quite a few top level boxers have championed this organisation. This is very subjective and I am startng not care about the undisputed tag anymore.

 

indeed

 

I think the Ring only recognises WBC, WBA, and IBF rankings or something like that... I could be wrong.

 

:rofl Fair enough, I've said me peace.

 

perfectly put