Plenty of people didn't reconize the IBF for a long time either. The Japanese and the Italians still only recognize the WBC and WBA.
I think you guys in the "Haye wasn't undisputed camp" need to sit down and have a chat, so you can actually decide if it is four belts or three. And if its three belts, which three belts. Some people seem to think you need all four, others think three, others think its three but the WBO doesn't count, the WBA seem to think it only takes two belts.....don't know why you're acting all outraged and pretending this is a unversially held opinion.
So with exception of Japan and Italy everywhere else in the world Haye was not undisputed. Also counting that there was never a single boxer from Japan fighting at cruiser limit and box in Italy is almost nonexistent the above exceptions doesn't count here
So what you're saying is, its ok not to recogize a sanctioning body, as long as that non-recognition serves the argument you are trying to make. How about, I don't reconize any of the sanctioning bodies, and there is no doubt in my mind that Haye was indisputabley the champion of the cruiserweight division, and should be recognized as such. You down with that, home...boy?
I don't have a fully formed opinion. I think there needs to be more debate on the subject. I just like to argue the counterpoint. My final thought would be, that if a fighter can be undisputed by holding only the WBC, WBA and IBF titles, but he CANNOT be undispited by holding the WBO, WBC, WBA and Ring titles, then that is clearly not very fair or logical and I don't accept at as such.
Well, you are obviously trying to create some confusion about a subject which should be clear cut. True, Japan only recognizes the WBA and WBC. But Japan and boxing, please? Untrue, Italy does recognize the IBF and the WBO. Fact is that there are 4 major bodies. It is fact that some hardliners do not recognize the WBO but the IBF is of course generally accepted. Undisputed champ means owner of all the major belts, while to some hardliners this might not include the WBO. But for the vast majority undisputed means owner of ALL 4 belts. Now, Haye is not an undisputed as he did not win the IBF which a major body recgnozed by every expert. But it is only highly technical as Haye beat the man who beat the man. Haye is the man in the division, he just can't call himself "undisputed" like Holyfield but at the end it does not matter anyway. Most importantly, Haye was the man.
Cool. I understand that is how you see it. However, I think this thread has proved that its not clear cut, and I like my last answer better. :good
4 major belts, even if you count the WBO if you dont have them all, youre not undisputed. BHOP and Jermain Taylor were the last undisputed champs...all 4 belts they owned..... pretty simple. back in the day when there were 3, tyson was undisputed champ, holyfield undisputed champ. whitaker undisputed champ. Haye was NOT undisputed champ as long as USS Cunningham owned that IBF strap
the blade has a valid point here.. its the same point i was trying to make at one stage about joe calzaghe...he was undisputed or promoted as undisputed in november 2007 after he beat mikkel kessler..but...lucian bute was ibf champ from october 2007 onwards.. ??
Yeah he wasn't, so what. i just hope everybody on this thread banging on about it, don't post in other threads about how Wlad is 'the real' heavyweight champ, and recognise Wlad as just 1 of 3 belt holders.
Calzaghe was the champion and gave it up directly because he was being forced to fight a mandatory that didn't tie in with his plans to eventually unify all belts. Lucian Bute was a paper champion, and Joe undisputed. As for the thread discussion - It depends on each individual's criterion. People don't recognise the WBO, by the same token - people can be more than within their rights to not recognise the IBF (although I would suggest that you shouldn't recognise 1 without the other). In all fairness - due to the multiple organisations fractioning the championship - I'd argue only the WBA champion is the real champion - it's the original champion from the beginning of the modern ruleset. You could also argue the linear is the real champion. To create an undisputed championship by way of direct definition - no one can dispute it. Because of the inconsistent policies of the organisations - it's not necessarily a fair standard. Especially as there is no order - therefore if you won the WBA/IBF and subscribed to the theory that WBA/WBC/IBF = undisputed, you could find yourself in a situation where - you either vacate the IBF and fight for the WBC, or keep the original 2 you own, and forget the WBC - at least for a long period due to mandatories etc. It can be near impossible to completely undispute something, Only Hopkins has really succesfully managed it in the current era, without any legitimate argument. Calzaghe managed it - however that he vacated the IBF still gives room for argument. Undisputed is a stupid word - as there will always be someone who disputes it.