Was David Haye Undisputed Cruiserweight Champion? Please vote!

In my opinion, to be "Undisputed" you have to have the WBA, WBC and IBF titles.

For whatever reason, rightly or wrongly, Haye didn't have the IBF title and therefore he wasn't "Undisputed".

 

It's quite simple for me. He never won the IBF title so therefore he wasn't the undisputed champ.

 

For a long time an "undisputed champion" had to hold the WBA, WBC and IBF champions. So under that definition, no he wasn't. But lets face it guys, those days are gone. With the WBA making guys "super" champions it is now impossible to be the only guy holding a major belt in a division, plus there's wheter the WBO counts as a major title these days.

I regarded Haye as being the proper champion of his division and whether Steve Cunningham or that polish guy held a spare belt didn't matter, he was the champ from when he beat Mormeck until he vacated the title.

 

Technically he might not have had the IBF belt but the WBC and WBA are what matter more plus he was lineal and had the WBO.

 

I think this is the bottom line

 

Honestly chief, it really isn't, not if we all stick to the facts

It LITERALLY means you hold all the titles and there is no 'dispute'


It's so black and white, I can't believe people are struggling with this lol.

It's up there with Roach's 'anything above 140 is welterweight' argument that people seem to be buying into.

Only in boxing ...



p.s. fully agree it's meaningless, it only mattered when there were 2 or 3 belts. As soon as the WBO came along it started becoming redundant and it's unheard of now.

It just sounds good in promotions so people still use it - incorrectly

 

Would agree with all of that.

 

The only way the IBF would not have stripped Bell is if he hadn't ducked the mandatory challenger! In that case Haye probably wouldn't have got his hands on any titles.

 

That's out of Hayes hands though.Haye was not undisputed,that's all there is to it.
The fact that Bell was stripped does not lessen Hayes acheivement in any way.

 

Of course it does. If Bell hadn't been stripped Haye would have ended up WBA, WBC and IBF champion - he'd be the undisputed champion which is clearly more of an achievement. But Bell was rightfully stripped because he didn't fight the guy the IBF saw as the most worthy contender.

 

What I mean is he still beat the same fighter in Mormeck regardless of whether or not he held the IBF.

 

He held 3 out of 4 titles. Please don't tell me the WBO is any less valued than the pathetic title stripping IBF, corrupt WBC and multi world champ in a division WBA.

 

I agree, its not really that much more of an achievement if he beat the same fighter but got 3 belts instread of 2 because someone else got stripped.

 

Er...yes it generally is less valued than those other belts.