Was David Haye Undisputed Cruiserweight Champion? Please vote!

...

 

...

 

...

 

common sense?...interpretations?..

technicality is exactly what we should go by...not 'common sense' {as everyone has their own idea of what 'common sense' is}

you say "cunningham won a vacant title".....won a what?...a "title"...so there you have it - a dispute.



saying that, i can see a valid point to what you are saying...but what you are saying is - who should be regarded as the true champ at the weight..and then you are right...
but 'undisputed' should not be used when talking about the best or real champ in this sense...as if mickey mouse held an ibf title for 2 days, then he is the dispute.




sorry...board was offline there and reposted what i thought didnt post.

 

Fairly pointless semantic argument.

 

What i think.

Also he beat the weakest champion in Enzo.

I think Cunningham was the best of the 3 champs (Mormeck and Enzo being the others).

I was always under the thought that you had to hold the WBA,WBC and IBF, out of the three belts to be classed as undisputed.:huh

 

which is correct....and it doesnt even matter who the belt holders are...its about the validity of the belt that isnt reconised.
so, the debate isnt so much about haye being the best...it becomes the ibf title being meaningless as a 'world title' in a situation where someone like haye has wba wbc wbo

 

It is a pointless discussion. Whether Haye was or was not the number one cruiserweight is a discussion. It was fairly obvious to me that he was. He was clear champion. If people want to label that as 'undisputed' then fine.

I don't see the relevance in 'someone else had another trinket, so he wasn't undisputed'. Especially when we are then presumably distinguishing between the available trinkets themselves (I doubt anyone has held all the actually available 'world title' belts in a division for quite a while).

If the IBF had decided not to strip Oneill Bell, that wouldn't make Haye a better fighter. It wouldn't make his record better. So it is a meaningless distinction. It's like arguing whether a colour is light black or dark grey. We're both looking at the same thing.

I'd also note that a number of the people chipping in with the 'Haye didn't hold the IBF so wasn't undisputed' arguments are people who, in other contexts, will tell you that ABC belts are meaningless. If they're meaningless, then stop attaching meaning to them.

 

Let's be clear on one thing, undisputed isn't open to interpretation

If another sanctioning body have a different champ it's 'disputed', that's all there is to it !

It's become meaningless though as it's virtually impossible to do these days

 

It isn't attaching meaning to them, it is simply observing the origins of the 'undisputed' issue

 

Too many people are getting confused about the question. It's not "In your opinion was Haye the best cruiserweight" but "Was he the undisputed cruiserweight champion". Being regarded as the best is not the same as being the champ otherwise there would be no point in having world titles.

In 1999 Holyfield had 2 of the 3 belts and was regarded as the best heavyweight in the world. He decided to fight Lewis for the undisputed title and it turned he wasn't the best after all.

 

is the ibf title a major boxing title?

or is it only a major title when the WBA WBC wbo are all held by different champions

 

That's the whole problem though, it is open to interpretation. Which is what makes the phrase meaningless.

I mean, these days, it's hard enough to be undisputed WBA champion of a division!

 

For those saying Haye was undisputed because he beat the man who beat the man who was stripped of one of his three titles, what if he's been stripped of all three? What if in the meantime someone has unified all three again? We'd then have two 'undisputed' champions at the same time. What if they are all stripped and unified again? Three undisputed champions. Can you imagine 100 undisputed champions? That's even more ridiculous, if possible, than the idea of an undisputed champion while another guy still holds the IBF title.

It's a very extreme example but it illustrates why that definition of undisputed doesn't work at all.