David Haye was never a world champ at heavyweight

lol Yes he had the same title a Char does now but that was the top WBA title then..

The current "Super" was made up for Kilt cause he had more than one belt..

The mistake the WBA have made is to let the other title be fought for outside their super champ..

 

@Infern0121 - are you at least going to have the balls to come back in and admit you were talking ****?

 

Almost as ridiculous as the Zeuge lost on purpose thread.

 

If you look at the history of it, by the time Haye got that belt, Wlad should already have been WBA super champion for beating Ruslan Chagaev.

But instead of Wlad becoming WBA champion then, the belt somehow went back to Valuev, even though Chagaev had beaten Valuev for it before he lost to Wlad.

So the OP has a point.

 

David Haye never beat the best at Heavyweight would be a better title/discussion.

 

But also stating the obvious...at least it’s true I guess...

 

It would be a terrible discussion. Along with just about every boxer who has ever boxed Haye was not the very best ever, ever, ever, ever in his weight division. Stop the press. But he is retired now and should get his props.

 

Yes, Chagaev didn't lose the WBA title in the ring and was then beaten by Klitschko. I think technically Chagaev was declared champion in recess and then stripped for not fighting Valuev who had won the vacant title against Ruiz, but life's too short to get too fixated on alphabet dumb****ery.

The lineage of Haye's WBA title was therefore spurious, as he won it from a guy who won a vacant title after the guy who beat him was stripped in advance of him fighting the top guy in the division. The lineage of most alphabet titles is spurious though, and it is the fighter that makes the belt rather than the other way round.

Haye defended against the ubiquitous Ruiz and Audley Harrison, so didn't really do much to legitimise the belt he was wearing and make a credible claim to be the number 1 guy in the division. It's not a knock on Haye as a fighter, but the shoe certainly fits if you want to argue that he held a paper title at heavyweight.

 

I meant in his era. Wladimir Klitschko beat him easily, and he never faced Vitali Klitschko, Povetkin, Joshua,.

 

The belt was legit. Chagaev choose not to defend it against Valuev to have a shot at the Ring title v Klitschko who in turn picked up the even more ambiguous Lineal.

What's the point in having a mandatory if you don't enforce it.

 

It was legit by the rules and standards of the WBA I guess. By alphabet logic it was all above board; Chagaev was injured so he was declared champ in recess. In the meantime Valuev won an eliminator and was therefore the mandatory challenger and eligible for an automatic title shot within a certain timeframe.

Back in the real world, the situation was that their champ (Chagaev) wants to unify against the no.1 fighter in the division (Klitschko), rather than someone he has already beaten (Valuev). They strip their champ of the belt and put a fight on between two guys who Chagaev has already beaten (Valuev and Ruiz). Haye comes along and beats them both.

At this point Haye hasn't done anything other than beat the same guys that have already lost to Chagaev, and Chagaev has since lost to Klitschko anyway. Klitschko is obviously the champ, and Haye has no valid claim to dispute that other than the situation contrived by the WBA. That isn't lineal ambiguity; it's logic and commonsense.

If you win a title in those circumstances it's a paper belt.

 

The state of casuals