The funny thing is, I can see your point of view, I'm just arguing the counterpoint. Yet, you can't see, or simply refuse to accept, that when it is beyond dispute that a fighter is the champion of their respective division, that that they are the undisputed champion. You can't tell me that there is any doubt, that if a man has 95% of the Championship, the fact that he is the champion - is something that can be disputed.
So Calzaghe only ever had 1 title defence against Bika, De La Hoya never won titles at Super featherweight or middleweight, Chris Eubank was never a world champion, Cotto still isnt a world champion and never won one at light welterweight. :think
It cannot be disputed that he's the man of the division. The #1 ranked fighter of the division. That cannot be disputed. But whether he's an "undisputed champion"... that Haye isn't. Tyson won the belts in 88. The WBO was formed in 88.. so your Tyson argument fails
Exactly,with all this ignorance here it is actually suprising to have a knowledgable poster around here.
75%. He held 75% of the major belts. 3/4 = .75 That's not how an undisputed champ is defined. If someone else has a majore belt, or in some cases the lineal title, there is a dispute to your claim as a champion. For over 100 years , the undisputed champ was a designation given to the fighter who was recognized as the champion by all the major orgs No it is not. Now had Haye won the IBF belt and then vacated it before fighting Mormeck, you would have a point. You're still not getting it. The other orgs didn't even recognize the WBO until a few years ago. Back in say 1996, an IBF/WBA/WBC champ would get stripped if he attempted to fight for the WBO belt. Therefore, the WBO belt has traditionally not been needed in order to gain undisputed status.
Exactly, the first WBO heavyweight champ was actually crowned at the end of 1989.It was an italian bum, I can't remember his name... So even if you want to count the WBO, this is all pointless...
No not true. It was originally WBA and WBC only. Then the IBF stuck its nose in. Then WBO joined the party. The WBO are lightly regarded and the IBF like to strip worthy champs for bollocks reasons. Neither is better than the other. I like the way in this thread people are giving their own definitions of undisputed as if they are fact when they are just some armchair nobody saying what they THINK it SHOULD mean. The WBA define undisputed on their site and by that definition Haye was undisputed champion, ergo he was an undisputed champion. He was never universally recognised though.
And you made two accounts to do that as well. You did a really good job disguising it too! HOYA-UK must be the smart version. You the ******ed version that cannot hold a simple debate. At least Hoya can bring up valid points of discussion instead stating false information as facts.
I agree with your statement at the beginning but that was 40 years ago. You know that today we have the following situation: 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. If you do not want to recognize the IBF strap, that is fine but you can't dispute that the IBF is today a GENERALLY recongnized MAJOR organisation.
The WBA makes **** up as they go along. According to them, a super champ is a fighter with at least 2 belts. However, Shane Mosley is the WBA super champ at WW. Their definitions of undisputed is only used by them for the purpose of defining the mado defense intervals of fighters with 3 belts.
Belts are not the only things that define a champion. If you only count alphabetty belts then yes, Haye had 75% of the Championship. But if you throw in the Ring title, and the fact he was the linear Champ, then 95% is a more credible number than 75%. I'm not arguing about what the traditional defintion of an undisputed champion is. But from what I've read, the "term undisputed champion" is not a designation that has been used very often prior to the modern era. Perhaps it is time to revaluate that term; because it really makes no sense to suggest that a man who was indisputabley the champion of his division, was somehow not the undisputed champion.