Haye was never undisputed champ at cruiser

Strange that you would be the one arguing this point as, iirc, you are one of those that defines lineal champion in the more traditional manner, as opposed to those these days that argue a vacancy can be filled by a meeting between whoever they personally consider to be the best two fighters in the division.

That is, of course, how The Ring define their champions.

What are you looking for by way of proof? Adamek is Ring Champion at CW, but not linear, Marquez is Ring Champion at LW, but not linear. The two, by their nature, will often coincide, but they are not linked.

 

Don't play stupid. I can't believe you scrolled all the way to the bottom and tried to use the WBA' definition of undisputed, which is used for their own internal purposes.

 

The reason is that he wanted no part of Steve Cunningham

 

Revisionist crap, Guilermo Jones had only a couple of wins against nobodies in two and a half years at the time and I don't recall anybody even mooting him as a potential opponent for Haye.

 

Don't **** up my theories. I personally believe that a lineage can only be reestablished if all the belts are unified. However, many believe it can be reestablished by pitting the top two fighters in the division against eachother. Hence, the point of the Ring Title is to recognize the lineal champ. That is their main objective

My answer to the first part of your response should cover this.

 

You say that the organisations determine the definition, so why is the WBA's definition not acceptable? Because you disagree with it? That just sums up this whole issue, there is no specific definition - it evolves...and even then not everybody agrees on it.

 

Haye was undisputed.
Now joe buck yourself.

 

So, despite the fact that you agree with me, you still dismiss my argument as 'bull****' on the grounds that other people don't? :happy

 

Yeah ! and you think Cunnigham had a good claim to the "title" because of a stupid mandatory challenger rule. The kind of stupid rules who forces real champs to drop a belt every now and then nad gives the abcs the *cough cough* moral autority to create new bull**** title holders every chance they get.

 

I said the sport has determined the definition. Read the entire article

It's not acceptable because it's just some **** that they made up in order to make it easier for fighters holding their belt to unify. It is not meant to be a universal definition.

No, everyone does not agree upon it. However, there is a definition for it that has been used for decades.

 

That's because haye is in a league above both of them.

 

Damn it people heres' the damn defenition of undisputed champion

In professional boxing, the undisputed champion of a weight class is a boxer who is recognized as the world champion at that class by all the major sanctioning bodies

meaning WBC-WBA-IBF-WBO- Haye did not win the IBF title so he is not the undisputed champ :hi:

 

Bell went over a year without defending his titles. How long should he be able to not defend?

 

Sometimes I feel like I 'm talking to children on here. You said that the Ring has nothing to do with the lineal champ. This is clearly incorrect as the point of the ring title is to recognize the lineal champ. The fact that they pit, who they believe to be, the two best fighters against eachother in the event of a broken lineage is a testament to this. Now I don't personally agree that this is the way lineage should be reestablished. However, that doesn't mean that the Ring champ is very much related to the lineal champ and that the ring attempts to keep track on the lineal champ via the Ring Belt.