So there has never and will never be an undiputed champ, period. There is always another belt, isnt there? Period. Would you like a tampon for that? Period.
Except there are 5 belts that matter these days. And he had 4 of em. And he beat the guy that beat the guy that had the 5th who never lost it in the ring.
Are any of you guys are capable to read a thread? We proved that Holyfield was undisputed champ at cruiserweight. He won the undisputed championship against De LEon on August 1988 (IBF-WBA-WBC). The first WBO cruisierweight champion ever was crowned in December 1989. Holyfield was already a heavyweight. Not to mention that the WBO was a minor title back then.Even Hoya admitted that. Same thing with Tyson who won the undisputed championship in 1988. First WBO heavyweight was crowned later. Not to mention it was a minor title. Some of us do not even recognize the WBO heavyweight champioship right now.
Are any of you guys are capable to read a thread? We proved that Holyfield was undisputed champ at cruiserweight. He won the undisputed championship against De LEon on August 1988 (IBF-WBA-WBC). The first WBO cruisierweight champion ever was crowned in December 1989. Holyfield was already a heavyweight. Not to mention that the WBO was a minor title back then.Even Hoya admitted that. Same thing with Tyson who won the undisputed championship in 1988. First WBO heavyweight was crowned later. Not to mention it was a minor title. Some of us do not even recognize the WBO heavyweight champioship right now. Holyfield and Tyson held ALL THE TITLES back then, period.
I simply don't recognize your point to be valid ... who are you btw? If we follow your argument we can not recognize WBC, WBA, WBO, IBF to be valid sanctioning bodies at HW ... so technically Haye is undisputed heavyweight champion right now ... don't mean by that world champion but he beat two strong contenders already and he look sharp and fit and he is naturally handsome (probably have an enormous dick also) so he deserve to be called undisputed.
Just read the thread again: 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 and longtime observes who do not accept the WBO. Not because the WBO is more corrupt but because there were already 3 championship belts and the WBO was created as the last one..THAT IS ALL, END OF STORY: NO FIFTH ORGANISATION(WBU, IBU, IBA,.WBF..they all do not count)
Yes, Haye was not undisputed. Haye never bothered to fight Cunningam, Bell, Adamek, etc. He beat over the hill Mormeck and made one domestic fight with Macca. That's all.
His wins over Mormeck and Enzo gave him 3 belts,that made him undisputed in most peoples eyes.He was the best in the world at cruiser and Cunningham would have gone the same way as Enzo.David deserves a lot of credit for what he did at cruiserweight.
"Undisputed" is a notion from the past and it has ALWAYS meant that you have ALL THE BELTS (IBF-WBA-WBC-WBO) Now, some people do not recognize the WBO but that is another story. But even for those people undisputed means holding ALL THE BELTS because for them the WBO does not exist. Yes, Haye was the best cruiserweight but just not "undisputed" like Holyfield and Tyson who had ALL THE BELTS.
So, the lesson is, a fighter can hold the WBA, WBC and IBF titles and be considered the "undisputed champion". But, a fighter who holds the WBC, WBA, WBO and The Ring titles CANNOT be the "undisputed champion". Or, a fighter can hold the WBA, WBC and IBF title, and be considered the "undisputed champion" despite the fact one of his rivals could hold the WBO and The Ring titles at the same time. None of this is fair, or even remotely logical, it might be technically correct to say that Haye wasn't the undisputed champion, but it really doesn't make a lot of sense.
Well, it is quite technically and it really does not matter a lot anyway. Most important thing is that you are the man like Haye was.