Are Haye/Calzaghe/Pavlik undisputed champions?

Tszyu had a long time out, but was still undisputed when he came back.

Undisputed title cannot be stripped!:verysad

 

You're the lineal champion until you lose it or retire, its simple.

 

Lineal and undisputed are not the same thing.

 

There is no legitimate dispute against a lineal champion, especially not against Haye.

Nobody is ever truely undisputed, only within reason.

 

The undisputed title often refers to the guy who holds the WBC,WBA, and IBF titles all at once. I think a lot of you guys are confusing your terminology.

 

No, he's the lineal champ... but that's a very interesting story. Michalczewski never was undisputed although he defeated lineal champ Virgil Hill to unify WBA, IBF, WBO titles, Gonzalez defeated Dariusz, Erdei defeated Gonzalez. But as Dariusz never lost the other two belts in the ring (was stripped) and he was the lineal champ, there's NO WAY that you can call Jones undisputed champ at LH at ANY time because he just collected paper titles (of course the WBC wasn't a paper title - but Dariusz never lost the WBA and the IBF in the ring - that's why those are just paper).

Hopkins is The Ring champ but it's not like he unified or defeated an undisputed champ... there wasn't any when he fought Tarver. How can you call someone The Ring champ if he's not even the lineal champ?

 

Of course they are the undisputed champions in their divisions.

Let me see here...

Calzaghe/Kessler had 3 or even 4 of the belts when they met. I don't see the problem here.

Mormeck/Bell was a similar situation making Mormeck the champ when Haye beat him. Again, no problem.

Hopkins had unified the titles when he lost to Taylor. Taylor then proceeds to lose to Pavlik. Once again, I don't get the issue here.

To claim a fighter has to have all 4, 5, 6, or however many belts are out there to be a champ is crazy.

Then, to say that when a fighter picks up a belt, that the champ had stripped from him, makes him anything more than the holder of a meaningless belt is plain silly.

 

The hell there isn't. You think everyone was calling Michael Spinks the HW champion in the 80's before he fought Tyson?

 

We can all nit pick but we all know linear and undisputed SHOULD mean the same thin even if SOME people think they dont.

Haye is THE champion, Cunningham isnt.

Calzaghe is THE champion, Bute isnt.

Pavlik is THE champion, Abraham isnt.

Mayweather is THE champion, Cintron isnt.

Hatton is THE champion, Mallignaggi isnt.

Not complicated.

 

How is the IBF any more legit than the WBO?

Its all a judgement call.

 

Here's a list of undisputed champions in the sport's history;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_undisputed_boxing_champions

 

I can accept that. I've stated numerous times that the irony of an undisputed champ is that everyone disputes what constitutes undisputed. However, a commonly used standard is having the WBC,WBA, and IBF belts at once. That's the standard that was used when I first started watching the sport in the late 80's, and that's what I've always thought it to mean.

 

Whether they were or not, Holmes was the real champion, not Berbick.

 

Answer the question. Was there a dispute as to who the HW champion was after Spinks beat Holmes and before he fought Tyson in 88?

 

I think the problem occurs when fans who are supposed to be knowledgable, let alphabet politics rule the heads.

Linear/Undisputed - when you get frustrated and politically corret when discussing the terminology you lose site on what the point is. The point we are trying to make, is "who is the ****in Daddy?!". And at cruiserweight my freinds, David haye is the ****ing Daddy!:bart