Was Haye undisputed CW champ........ I was watching the final presser the other day and started thinking about what Harrison was trying to assert. I mean strictly speaking, doesn't undisputed mean, that no one can dispute your claim to be being the best in the division? now to acquire that distinction would dictate that you win all the belts, and hold them at the same time, now that seems a bit unrealistic what with all the sanctioning fees and politics that goes on behind the scenes, but strictly speaking, does that make Harrison right? I guess you could argue that because its so unrealistic these days, to hold all the titles, that being consensus HW champ can be translated to, undisputed, or can it? I mean strictly speaking, you still wouldn't be undisputed champ would you? cause there might be someone out there that does not view you as the consensus HW champ, therefore its being disputed. Thoughts on this........:thumbsup
Didn't fight Cunningham..........but you're right, sometimes its tough to fight every belt holder out there for political and financial reasons. I am not sure, though, whether Haye even tried to make this fight or whether he was just in too much of a hurry to get out of the division. His reign on CW was brief, and thiere should be an asterisk beside this undisputed claim of his. It's more correct to say that he was "the man" at CW, at that time.
He had the WBA/C/O and Ring titles, wich makes him the concensus #1 CW not the Undisputed champ... It's comparable with Wlad's HW IBF/O, WBO and Ring titles.
I think at the time, he beat "the man", Mormeck, to become "the man". Then he beat his main challenger in Maccarinelli. If anyone feels im wrong though please correct me.
I would not say Enzo was his main challanger. I would give that distinction to Cuningham. Enzo was simply the more popular choice. This is backed up by the fact that all the belt holders Haye has fought have dissapeared from contention. USS remains.
For me he was the undisputed CW champ, haye explained mormeck had 3 titles WBA/WBC/IBF but because he didnt fulfilled his obligation to fight cunningham as the mandatory challenger for the IBF title (fighting haye instead) the IBF striped him of that just before the fight with Haye. There was no reason for haye to fight cunningham after that as 1, it wouldn't generate that much money: 2, he is the no1 CW so it wouldn't prove anything and finally and probably most important he wants to win the HW title and cannot waste anymore time in the CW division.
I disagree on that point. It would have proven a lot, especially in retrospect, considering where Cunningham is now as opposed to where Mormeck, Fragomeni and Enzo are now.
Technically no No.1 CW yes, its rare for someone to actually hold 3 outta 4 belts these days, but.... Undisputed champion ? No, he didn't hold all of the 4 major belts Out of interest, are there any undisputed champions currently ? If not, who was the last ? Did Lennox Lewis ever hold WBC,WBA,WBO and IBF at the same time ?
atsch O'Neil Bell was stripped of the IBF title in 2006 for not fighting his mandatory Cunningham. Later he lost the WBC and WBA to Mormeck. Mormeck never held the IBF title.
How can you say that, Cunningham is, was, clearly more talented than Enzo. But he was'nt strictly speaking, thats the point, he did have something to prove, cause Cunningham held a! version the title.
Boxing politics have got so bad it's almost impossible to unify the four (or three if you don't count the WBO) major belts. There's only about a half dozen guys right now with more than one, across 17 divisions. Haye was about as clear cut a number one as you can get, beat the lineal champ, unfied with the other belt, only unfinished business was Steve Cunningham who only had a belt because it was stripped from O'Neil Bell anyway, he's as close to an undispued champ as we'll see these days.