I understand the point you're making - and you're right it is unfair - at least now in it's application to the current generation. In years previously it's a different story - but now the way it's being applied, it is unfair, and inconsistent.
2002 Jean Marc Mormeck TKO 8 Virgil Hill (Captured WBA Cruiserweight title) 2005 Jean Marc Mormeck UD Wayne Braithwaite (Unified WBA and WBC Cruiserweight titles) 2006 O'Neil Bell KO 10 Jean Marc Mormeck (Unified WBA, WBC and IBF titles) (Captured undisputed cruiserweight title) 2007 Jean Marc Mormeck UD O'Neil Bell (Captured undisputed cruiserweight title) David Haye TKO 7 Jean Marc Mormeck (Captured undisputed cruiserweight title) 2008 David Haye TKO 2 Enzo Maccarinelli (Retains undisputed cruiserweight title) (Captured WBO cruiserweight title) :huh
I agree a little bit with both of you. "It was more fair to previous generations", well put by you. That is because there are more belts now then 20 or fory years ago. I stated from the beginning that "undisputed" is an ancient term and a lot of people nowadays confuse it with "The Ring champion" or "linear "champion". It is all highly technical but Haye was never the "undisputed" champion.
I am not gonna to repeat myself 1000 times, just read the entire thread and you will understand. "undisputed chamo" is a concept of the past and it is highly technical. It has nothing to do with the Linear or Ring champion or being the man. Haye never was IBF champ, therefore he never was "undisputed" champ. Being "undisputed" champ had more significance in the past than today, Haye was the man at cruiserweight that is what matters.
The problem with this kind of threads is that people tend to react emotionally without sticking to the facts. The lack of historic knowledge of some recent followers of the sport does little to clarify things. Claiming that Haye was never undisputed champ at cruiser is technically correct. He simply didn't simultaneously hold the 3 major belts to justify that claim. Whether Haye hold both "linear" (for beating then undisputed champ Mormeck) and WBO championships is irrelevant here. End of the story.
At the time when Evander Holyfield won the ibf title it was only 4 years old and and was ranked no better than the wbo is now by most people. 2006 O'Neil Bell KO 10 Jean Marc Mormeck (Unified WBA, WBC and IBF titles) Also that fight was for the undisputed cruiserweight title and O'neil Bell neven lost that ibf title in the ring so he was still undisputed for the 2007 Jean Marc Mormeck UD O'Neil Bell (Captured undisputed cruiserweight title) and Mormeck got ktfo in his next fight against Haye so Haye was undisputed as the ibf title was never lost in the ring It is called boxing politics and is 1 thing you need to learn about.
Haye was the undisputed champion. Cunningham was nothing more then the number 1 contender. And that's from a Haye hater and a Cunningham fan. Did Lennox Lewis stop being the undisputed heavyweight champion when the IBF and WBA stripped him?? Did Jermain Taylor stop being the undisputed champ when the IBF stripped him?? Did Kostya Tszyu stop being the undisputed champ when the WBC and WBA stripped him??? Was Calzaghe vs Kessler not for the undisputed championship because the stripped Calzaghe of the IBF belt and the fight was only for the WBO, WBA and WBC titles?? Was Roy Jones undisputed champion at 175 even tho he never held the linear and WBO titles and only wont the WBA and IBF titles because the they were stripped from the linear and WBO champion Dariaus Michalczewski?? Did Riddick Bowe stop being the undisputed champion when he dropped the WBC title in the garbage?? When Holyfield beat him in the rematch did Holyfield not become the undisputed champion for a second time?? Did Winky Wright stop being undisputed champion when the IBF stripped him??
What is the point? Man, why does every thread has to be ruined like this... It has been proven that Holyfield was the undisputed champ. He had ALL BELTS. Holyfield became undisputed in 1988 (WBC-IBF-WBA) and the first WBO cruiserweight champ EVER was crowned in 1989 when Holyfield was already a heavyweight already. Besides the WBO was a minor title back then in 1989. Holyfield did it, Tyson did it, Haye did not, now get over it for christ sake.
Exactly, people are confusing everything here "linear" "number one" "Ring champion". It is just lack of knowledge.
The answer to those questions is yes. LL and Taylor stopped being undisputed when they were stripped but remained "linear champs". "Undisputed" is a highly technical concept from the past and has less significance nowadays. I give you an example If Vitali were to held the IBF-WBA-WBO belts and Sam Peter the WBC belt. Vitali is not undisputed champ until he unifies with Sam Peter. He might be the number one and Ring champion but not undisputed champ.
Everything said here is 100% right if you have won the undisputed crown you never lose it until you have lost in the ring at that weight class simple as that really