Was David Haye Undisputed Cruiserweight Champion? Please vote!

You are trying to put a never properly defined boxing meaning on an already dictionary defined word. There has never been, nor likely will there ever be an undisputed champion, in any literal sense.

 

Technically, David Haye; who I am a massiva fan of was not undisputed cruiserweight champion. He held WBC, WBO and the WBA Super titles. At the time of his reign there was a WBA recognised champion and an IBF champion. Therefore his title was disputed. All other belts from other organisations are ignored. The only undisputed cruiserweight champion was Evander Holyfield. This is not to say David Haye is not an outstanding cruiser. Rules are rules and when you start bending them to suit what is the point?

 

Haye was clearly the best Cruiserweight in the world. He proved it.
WBA, WBC, Ring Champ and then WBO.

So whilst technically not the Undisputed champion of old WBC,WBA, IBF etc, things have moved on since the early/mid 1980's:-

The WBO are here.
The Ring belt is starting to take off.
We have multiple Interim, Super, Regular titles etc.

It's almost impossible to hold onto all the belts due to mandatories.

Just think about it, Pacman is WBO champ, doesn't mean he's worse than any Undisputed Welterweight Champion. (if there was one)

Years ago, there was only one or two champs. Then WBA and WBC. The more belts there are the harder to unify and hold onto them.

To be truly Undisputed means to be generally considered by nearly everyone to be the best at the weight and to hold a title or titles there. You shouldn't all of a sudden become a worse thought of fighter if the IBF strips you of one belt. The most important aspect of this is to get something linear in place. When fighters retire or move up in weight then obviously a paper champion or champions will exist for a while.

 

the way i see it is that the ring mag champ is the cHAMP

simple reason they are unbiased in their rankings

 

Of course they're not unbiased. The rankings are done by people, people have biases.

 

It's always disputed, but I consider 3/4 of the major sanctioning bodies to be undisputed and the Ring title is the linear/a lineal title.

 

dont think he won the IBF

 

But he did beat someone who had beaten the IBF champion and the title was never lost in the ring...

 

Yes of course, The Ring has never taken bribes to rate fighters in it's entire history.....

 

Sad that boxing's come to this. The alphabets actions have largely made the term both unobtainable but also now practically irrelevant.
If Haye was undisputed then was Sugar Ray Leonard undisputed middleweight champ? No, neither were.

At least the Ring scandal was addressed and put right (30 + years ago now) - unlike the alphabets who are still up to no good. Surely in comparison, an organisation that is actually running the sport and demands and accepts money to sanction it's own title fights is a far, far greater concern.

 

Haye was clearly the best cruiserweight out there, held every title except the IBF and does anyone really think the IBF champion would have beaten Haye? Doubtful.

The WBO is gaining a lot more worth as is the Ring belt and as such Haye deserves to be called undisputed. After all how many more alphabet belts will appear in the future?

The definition of "undisputed" really needs to be rethought.

 

Without dispute.