Haye was never undisputed champ at cruiser

Have you actually forgotten at this point that it was you that started this thread?

 

It's not "as simple as that".

You can't all of a sudden be undisputed and then because you dont wanna fight some shitty ABC mandatory you're not.

Here's a scenario for you. Say a fighter unifies the WBC, IBF, WBA and WBO titles. He's the linear and Ring Champion. Now the douche bags at the WBA decide to make the unified champ the "super" champion and then set a fight between two lower end top ten fighters for the "regular" champion.

Now is the fighter that holds the WBC, IBF, WBA, WBO, linear and ring titles no longer "undisputed" champion because someone else holds one of the titles??? Is he no longer undisputed until he unifies the WBA regular and super championships???

 

What the **** is this you need to hold all 4 belts to be undisputed? Before Hopkins beat Oscar how many champions held all four belts? This whole argument is useless as it's soon going to be impossible to be 'undisputed'. It boggles my mind that I'm forced to agree with Zakman on this.

 

Here's another situation. Say a fighters unifies all the titles. WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO, linear and ring. Then instead of fighting some **** mandatories he fights the best in the division and over the course of two years gets stripped of all the ABC titles. Now another fighter unifies the WBC, WBA, IBF and WBO titles while the linear and ring champ is still undefeated and still fighting regularly at that weight weight class. Is there now an undisputed champion and a linear champion in the same division???

 

Haven't read the whole thread cause it's too long, but it's splitting hairs to say Haye wasn't 'undisputed' cause of the IBF belt.

Calzaghe never held all four belts simultaneously either but still got called the undisputed SMW champ.......The IBF always seem the quickest to strip champs of their belts and put up the most Mickey Mouse mandatories for them.

Haye never had the WBU or IBO or any o those BS titles either, would they stop him being undisputed as well?

 

All the abc titles mean **** now all boxing purists know this it is more important being the topdog in the weight class as all the abc organisations will strip a unified champ if they think they can get more money from other fighters.
The fans know who is the real champ and that he never lost them belts in the ring so he is still undisputed till he loses in the ring

 

I'm a true purist I believe there is only one true title like back in the early 1900's. And me being such a purist I believe that anyone who holds the WBA title(the original world championship) is the undisputed linear champion and anyone who holds the WBC, IBF and WBO titles are simplely contenders and nothing more.

 

So what you are saying is that the undisputed title is nothing more then a superficial "title" that people give a fighter that has all the nice shiney pretty belts. I see now.:good

 

To be undisputed you have to beat the opposing top fighters at the division, but it will happen only for a short period of time as there is always some new contender making his way up and today it is almost impossible to do it while accumulating all the 4 major belts because of mandatories and politics.

As for Haye, he came close to undisputed, but at the time he beat Mormeck, Cunningham was already around, a legit champ and calling him out, by the time he defeated Macca, Cunningham was loud and clear calling him out to unify and he never wanted that fight.

Well, for not having fought Cunningham he can't call him former undisputed CW king, IMO, but he was the main CW back there.

 

Did Cunningham beat O'Neil Bell to get the ibf title i think not so he was not a legit champ as Bell either give up the title or was striped and not lost it in the ring

 

I thought the New York state athletics commision was the original one and they went in with the WBC (with a couple o stages in between).