Its because you keep going on about 3 belts for undisputed as in WBC, WBA and IBF. So iassume what your saying is that if Cunningham had the WBO and enzo had IBF when haye fought him then we all wouldnt be on this udisputed thread.
Jones Jr. held all 3 major belts simultaneously as well as the ring belt. Tyson had all 3 belts, Lewis had all 3 belts, Hopkins had all 4 belts. Calzaghe held 3 of the 4 and vacated the 4th. Jones Jr., Hopkins, Lewis, and Tyson weren't refered to as undisputed champs until they had all the major titles.
It is subjectif for you because you don't follow the sport since a long time. I will give you the facts: There are currently 4 recognized sanctioning bodies: WBA, WBC, IBF and WBO. It is a fact that some hardliners and knowledgable longtime observers (including me) do not recognize at all ot not fully the WBO.This is the case because the WBO was created as the last organisation and there were already 3 in place. The WBU, IBO, IBA, WBF...are not recognized.Toney would be 10-time world champ then. When it was the created in the mid 90'the WBU was actually gaining some attention and there was a possibility that a 5th organisation would be accepted but it never came through. Today the WBU is nothing.
Undisputed means without dispute, what you are saying is that Cunningham had cause to dispute Haye's status as champion because he held an alphabetti spaghetti title, in which case an iba, wbu, wbf etc etc titlist could dispute it too. Maybe being "undisputed" meant holding all three belts when there were only three belts but there are a lot more than three now.
Exactly what I am saying, good post. You can't be undisputed if you don't have the IBF strap. Holyfield was the undisputed and Haye not, end of story.
I will give you the facts: There are currently 4 recognized sanctioning bodies: WBA, WBC, IBF and WBO. It is a fact that some hardliners and knowledgable longtime observers (including me) do not recognize at all ot not fully the WBO.This is the case because the WBO was created as the last organisation and there were already 3 in place.
I have disagree here. I think Haye's a loudmouth and a punk, and he's ridiculously over-hyped as a HW. But the fact that he didn't hold one of the paper titles is pretty meaningless when you consider that he beat the guy who who WAS the recognized champion of the division, and unified three of the four major titles. It is a pure technicality that he didn't get one of these meaningless belts. Haye beat the guy who was considered "the man" and he held all of the belts but one. To the extent that we quibble about this, we give more legitimacy to these illegitimate sanctioning bodies.
When Calzaghe beat Kessler, he was stripped/vacated the IBF title, but was still know as the undisputed champion. There are literally dozens of other examples like this which you conveniently choose to ignore.
Nonsense, you guys just don't follow the sport long enough and lack substantial historical knowledge. Nobody would have given the title "undisputed champ" to Tyson of he did not beat IBF champ Spinks.
It was not a pure technicality. Bell lost his IBF belt because he refused to fight his mando. No only did he not fight his mando, but he sat idle and fought no one instead.
I agree with you, Haye was the man and this is a pure technicallity. Holyfield was undisputed and Hays was not the undisputed champ. I am losing more and more respect for the Brit fans because they deny something which is completely obvious.