Was David Haye Undisputed Cruiserweight Champion? Please vote!

This was my point though when my first response in this thread was to say that it is a menaingless semantic debate (although apparantly that offended Losfer Words..)

The word undisputed has a dictionary definition. TBooze nailed it when he said that there will never actually be a literally 'undisputed' champion, as such a person would have no opponents. A challenger, by definition, disputes the champions right to remain champion. The word came into use in boxing when there were more than one 'champion' in a weight division. Before then, of course, you knew who the champion was - he was the guy wearing the belt. The use of the word 'undisputed' champion was in itself a recognition that there was a problem - people no longer knew who the 'champion' of a division was. So it made sense in the days when there were two belts to recognise the greater achievement of a fighter who held both, or all three when it came about that there were three belts, by use of the (logically meaningless) construction 'undisputed champion'.

It no longer makes any sense. There are so many belts that the term is meaningless. It's basically next to impossible for anyone to actually hold them all. The WBA even manages to have more than one champion themselves in some divisions! The very fact that we can have a six page thread on what constitutes being undisputed with different logically sustainable arguments being put forward for different viewponts illustrates that the phrase is no longer viable.

 

That's also a much easier question. The answer is yes.

 

On this, I can agree.

 

Actully it is a even more complex question as so many different intangibles make up lineage.

As I pointed out we have literally never had an undisputed champion as someone is always willing to fight and dispute your claim...

 

It can be complex question. I'm not sure it is in this case. Is there an argument that Bell vs Mormeck did not create a new lineage?

 

The lt heavies are a PITA. ****ing Erdei!!

 

I'd like to point out - is it even sensible to deny the existence of the WBO these days?

To the best of my understanding - I could be wrong, but if you're a champion with an organisation (big 4) - you're no longer ranked by another organisation.

Seeing as how the "big 3" all recognise the WBO - I can't see how others can't - otherwise old timers can still apply the same to the IBF, and if you're old enough - to the WBC.

Obviously - they wouldn't be taken seriously if that was the case, so why should the WBO be held separately - they've had some pretty great champions in recent times, and it's the fighter that makes the belt now.

Are there any other organisations that the big 4 will refuse to rank you if you are a champion of? If not - then I think the time for questioning the legitmacy of the WBO is past.

 

But even if you count the WBO Haye wasn't undisputed. He wasn't champion of the IBF.

 

Ring Magazine has refused in the near past to recognize WBO world champions, I'm not sure if they do now.

 

Just checked Kelly Pavlik, Wladimir Klitschko and Tim Bradley in their rankings and all of their WBO titles are noted, so seems they do.

 

And for what it is worth (little), I believe Farhood in this months Boxing Monthly wrote an article ranking the wanke... rankers in which he scored ten points to his highest ranked of the alphabet champs, seven, for second, five for third and three for fourth: The list came out: WBO 208 PTS, IBF 195, WBC 176 and WBA 156...

 

I'm not debating that - different argument,, I'm discussing the merits of counting the wbo.

 

It's a term that is tossed around and it sound great but can be debatable. Was he undisputed by the definition - I don't know. Was he the best at that time - yes, he was.

 

What's important is that Haye has done nothing at heavyweight except run from Vitali and Vlad. Holyfield had to work to get a title shot at heavyweight.

 

Yes