Haye was never undisputed champ at cruiser

agree to be consider undisputed champion you have to have all the major belts. WBC-WBA-IBF-WBO. .Haye didnt have the IBF belt. This doesn't mean he wasn't the man at cruiserweight. He was still the best cruiserweight just not undisputed champ:good

 

exactly WBO wasn't around when tyson was the king in the 80's.

 

Well i don't count the IBF because it's only a new organisation, only the WBC and WBA are the true boxing organisations.

IBF, WBO, WBU, IBO, IBA, WPBF are all trinkets.

 

This is perfectly logical reasoning which many in this thread don't seem to get.

 

IBF was around before WBO fool

Some of you kids really need to be schooled on your history

The WBO only gained recognition within the last 15-20 years

 

I would say only need to have WBA WBC to be undisputed IBF is the most corrupt and biased of all the organisations only them would rank the famous NOT RATED 1 and 2 just to get fighters to pay sanctioning fees for those spots.

 

your the fool gypsey.

 

I agree IBF is the **** belt.

 

Same thing again,

There was no WBO heavyweight champ crowned in 1988 when Tyson unified. Anyway for some of us the WBO is not a major belt.

Unsdisputed is actually an official notion. If you check the records of the internet you will see the notion when the guy has all the belts.

Tyason did it, Holyfield did it but Haye did not.

 

Just don't speak on topics you're obviously clueless about.

Stating obviously wrong information as facts. Of course I'm gonna call you out

******

 

good description of yourself.l :hi::hi::good:good

 

You just said you don't give the IBF credence cause they're the newest. The WBO is the newest. I simply corrected your ******ed ass.

End thread. You need to be castrated. You should not be allowed to produce offspring. That's dangerous to the rest of society.

 

I'm saying that Haye had 95% of the Championship, it was beyong dispute that he was the Champ, therefore he was "the undisputed champion". I think its a technicality and semantics to deny this, and if were are going to apply The Blade's rigid definition of what its means to be "undisputed", then we need to examine our use of this term over the last 20 years, because there are many example of a fighters not holding the four major titles simultaneously, but still being regarded as "undisputed champions" and aknowledged as such.

 

i don't like the IBF because there the worst organisation, and compared to the WBC and WBA the are the new.

 

I fail to understand why so many people cannot come to grasps with a simple concept