Haye was never undisputed champ at cruiser

Off the top of my head, Tyson was undisputed until 1990.

 

Yes, the IBF and Cunningham could in this case.

This technicality is universal, for Haye and everybody else.

 

Even if you throw in the ring and lineal titles(which is bogus since the point of the ring title is to recognize the lineal champ) 5/6 = .83. 83% is closer to 75% that it is to 95%. You can thank me later for math lesson.

How can you be undisputed if another guy is running around with a major belt that you never won?

 

Not that I disagree with you on all points... but what you are saying is untrue. The WBO has been recognized for quite some time. Being recognized means that the other organizations recognize the Champion. The WBO Champ is ALWAYS taken out of the rankings of the other organizations just as is the WBC/IBF/WBA's Champions. People had also unified the WBO with other titles since before 3 years ago. Even 7 years ago Freitas unified the WBO and WBA titles and kept them together. DM unified the WBO/IBF/WBA titles back in 1997 when he beat Virgil Hill and then was stripped not long after because he couldn't meet their manditory demands.

Stories like this is why they started creating "Super Champs" with less demanding mandatory requirements. The problem that has now started is the creation of "regular Champs".... which is just ******ed and goes to show that all of the orgs are simply out for the money.

IMO, the entire theory of linear Champion... and Undisputed Champ by way of collecting all of the corrupt organizations titles just silly. With different promoters not willing to do business with certain fighters and other promoters, with the orgs themselves trying to stop unification fights because they want all of the sanctioning fees, ect... it has become a complete joke. Rather than getting stuck in a 5 year spin cycle of trying to clear mandatories that nobody wants to see, and trying to cut through the red tape of beating other Champs who aren't even considered as good as some of the contenders out there... I think the true Champs are the fighters who are out there beating all of the best available competition regardless of whether they have a belt or not.

 

Brother, you're a very weak poster if you go around labelling people with a different perspective as "ignorant".

 

The WBC/WBA/IBF would've stripped Tyson had he tried to fight for the WBO belt in 1990. The WBO was a minor title in 1990.

 

I never specifically said 3 years. I said a few years, which is a general term used to donate within recent memory.

 

I can't be arsed to read all this thread but if it hasn't been mentioned before - the only reason Haye did not have the IBF belt is because O'Neill Bell was stripped for giving Mormeck a rematch. The IBF belt did not hold much value when Cunningham got it as it had just been taken from the champion outside of the boxing ring.

The corrupt boxing organisations play these little games to get themselves more money, don't validate it by treating the paper champions as anything more relevant than a non-titlist.

 

Thanks for the math lesson Reg :good

And to answer the question, Cunningham had an IBF title, can he really have any credible claim to be the Champion of the Cruiserweight division? - when there is another fighter with the WBO, WBC, WBA and The Ring title, a fighter who also "beat the man"?

No, Cunningham had no legitmate claim to make, because Haye was clearly and indisputabley the Champion. Was Haye the "undisputed champion" if we apply the term in a traditionally rigid way? No, he wasn't.

But I think he clearly meets the philosophical critera of what it actually means in essence to be the undisputed champion. Like I said, I think its time we revaluated the meaning and designation of this particular term.

 

This is completely untrue. Bell didn't even fight Mormeck until a year after he was stripped.

 

Mother****ing racists.

 

So you are saying that he was stripped 8 weeks after winning the title? If that is the case then that only adds weight to the argument that the IBF belt was irrelevent in this particular situation.

 

Whether I agree with you or not - saying something is fact because you believe it to be true, does not make it a fact.

What you're actually saying is:

"It's a fact that I don't recognise the WBO".

Well that's good for you but it doesn't make it a fact!!

This is regardless of my position on Haye being undisputed or not. I don't think there's a 'rule' written anywhere that will clear it up, so let the discussion continue...

 

Cunningham was supposed to get his shot at the undisputed champ before Haye. However, Bell refused to fight him and fought no one instead. So given this, yeah, Cunningham did have a claim to the title.

You are still not getting it. For the better part of the sports existence, the undisputed champ has been a label designated by the fighter who is recognized as champ by all the major orgs. Now if you want to make up your own definition, so be it. However, according definition of the term, as defined by the sport itself over about 100 years or so, Haye was not undisputed.

Basically, you want to make up your own definition.

 

Bell origionallly won the title in Jan of 2006. He was stripped in April of 2006 for pulling out of his mando against Cunningham. Bell didn't fight again until March of 2007.