Ok, I'll rephrase it as 'Assuming the definition of lineal champion that myself and BigReg subscribe to, the Ring Title has nothing to do with the lineal champion'. Happier?
Many, fk it, since how long do you follow this sport? This is just insane arguing over a point like this. There are 4 major championship belts (IBF, WBA, WBC, WBO). There are still some hardliners who do not accept the WBO. THAT IS ALL, END OF STORY:
Oh man, I am losing patience here... THERE ARE 4 MAJOR CHAMPIONSHIPS BELTS (WBA; WBC; IBF;WBO) SOME HARDLINERS JUST STILL DO NOT RECOGNIZE THE WBO. THERE IS NOTHING TO ARGUE ABOUT!!!!!
I agree. If Haye wanted to be undisputed he should have gone after Cunningham. Haye was the best imo, the fan fav, linear, but he was not by definition undisputed and those who say he is should get over it.
Ok, he was undisputed at cruiserweight! But I really hope Klitschko beats him up seriously at heavyweight..... This guy talks way to much!
why would you not recognize the IBF title? it's part of the 4 major sanctioning title in boxing. To be undisputed you have to win all the major title which includes IBF atsch
Who am I? What has that got to do with anything? I am someone who understands basic English. Undisputed isn't an opinion. Either you are undisputed by holding ALL four of the major belts or you aren't.
I agree, he was Ring champ and you can call him "man" but technically he never been "undisputed" champion because Cunningham at the same time was rightful IBF champion and was calling Haye out. Having 3 mayor belts (whichever they are) don't make you undisputed until you beat the fourth guy who holds the last mayor belt and is recognized as legal world champion. The exception to that would be if someone else was holding the last belt and was rightfully stripped or retired and there is currently no new champion or champion was awarded with the belt (like Rahman after Vitaly been forced to retirement).