Haye didn't finish the job at Cruiserweight.

Bell was stripped because he refused to defend his belts against guys who had rightfully worked their way up the rankings(Cunningham). The man went a whole year without defending his belts. The IBF was justified in stripping. What would've happened if Mormeck decided he wasn't going to follow the rules and decided not to fight Haye? That's right, Haye would've had to fight for a vacated title just like Cunningham. I don't see how Haye is so much more worthy than Cunningham just because Mormeck manned up and fought while Bell didn't.

 

Only Hopkins was an undisputed Champ. He held all four belts and the ring belt MW. He is not undisputed at LHW. Mayweather is not undisputed at WW or any other division he ever fought at. Calzaghe, technically isn't undisputed at SMW, but he's really close. Being the top fighter, and being the undisputed champ are two different things.

 

When you got the WBC, WBA and Ring titles the other less important belts are not important. He only faced Enzo coz he knew Enzo was overrated and that he'd win easily whilst picking up a huge pay packet. Plus he has gained enormous UK exposure which will help his career as he goes into the heavyweight division.

Other than being American, Cunningham does not bring anything to the table. It would be another relatively easy nights work though and would give him all 4 belts. Cunningham does not have the KO power to worry Haye and Cunningham would not be able to avoid a Hayemaker for 12 rounds.

 

Your facts are not quite correct.

Hopkins is not the only person to hold all 4 belts.

Taylor had them all after beating Hopkins. Pavlik only won 2 belts from Taylor but surely he is the undisputed MW champion?

Calzaghe has also won all 4 but was stripped of the IBF belt so now only holds 3 of them. Surely you can not deny that he is the undisputed at SMW? Admittingly he did not hold all 4 at the same time but no one has beaten him and he did collect all 4 belts.

Other fighters (Bowe and Winky) have also held the 4 belts at one time during their careers. These are not undisputed but I thought I'd mention them anyway.

 

This is what happens when you jump in during the middle of a discussion, you get things all mixed up. Another poster and I were debating about what makes an undisputed champion. I gave the opinion that an undisputed champ is one that holds the WBC,WBA, and IBF belts at the same time. I was then asked if Mayweather, Calzaghe or Hopkins were undisputed. I then replied that only Hopkins,out of those three, was undisputed and further pointed out that he had all 4 belts at the same time.

 

EXACTLY if haye went doWn that road there would always be somone coming out of the woodwork ," you aint champ till you face me !" I like Cunningham but he would be a massive underdog and Haye ie really tight at the weight.


Cunningham should concentrate on unifying the vacated belts, He could well do it now Hays is out of the picture ( although I almost can't beleive I'm saying this but Herbie Hide is making another run and that MF can hit ! )

 

BigReg, there is no 'technical' definition for undisputed champion. To suggest Haye, Calzaghe, Pavlik are not undisputed championjs in their divisions is just ignorant. They hold the majority of the belts, and would all have 4 belts if it were not for corrupt organisations stripping fighters. They are beyond a shadow of doubt the best fighter in their divisions and have proved it. Calzaghe does not need to fight Bute to become undisputed. Pavlik does not nee to fight Sturm or Abraham, (alkthough the latter would be a good fight) and Haye does not need to fight Cunningham. They are all undisputed champs.

 

You guys have to learn to read everything and stop jumping to conclusions. I've already clearly stated that there is no one definition for being undisputed. However, one of the standards that has been traditionally used, is holding the WBC,WBA, and IBF belts all at once. That's the one I use. Under those standards, Calzaghe, Pavlik nor Haye are undisputed.

 

Well under your standards there will likely never be an undisputed champion again. All three fighters would hold all the 4 belts if they had not been stripped, or the fighters they defeated to become champion been stripped, for taking on better fighters.

 

Your standards give more credence to the vagaries of the various governing bodies than to what actually happens in the ring.

That seems a little strange.

 

O'neil Bell was stripped for not fighting anyone. He sat around for a year and fought no one. Cunningham earned the right to fight him, and he decided he just wasn't going to defend his title. What's the IBF supposed to do? Are they supposed to just supposed to let guys not defend their belt? Had Bell honored his duties as IBF champ, Cunningham have had all the belts right now. Luckily for Haye, Mormeck honored his duties as champion.

 

The governing bodies have made it easier for fighters to be unified champs. The WBA and WBO don't have strict mandatory standards for unified champs. However, what are the orgs supposed to do when someone doesn't want to fight? Or when someone wants to give unworthy opponents a shot for monetary purposes while ignoring contenders who fought their way up the rankings?

 

ok, but as you've mentioned below this answer was going along the guidelines of the WBC/WBA/IBF route as to whether or not someone was undisputed.

what is your own definition? have some of the above mentioned guys not done enough to be labelled undisputed in your opinion?

not getting on your back here, just interested to see what others define as undisputed.

 

I have no issue with the IBF stripping Bell if he hadn't complied with their requirements - it's their belt. I have no issues with Cunningham winning that championship.

I'm just not going to base any judgements on those decisions when there are various different organisations making those decisions for various different reasons.

You distinguish between fighters who you agree are the proven number one in their division and those who are 'undisputed' due to holding all the belts. The second distinction is meaningless to me, it adds nothing to the first.

 

No they have not. The only one who I would consider straying from those standards for is Calzaghe. However, he decided to give up his IBF belt so that he could take a money fight with Manfredo. Haye, Pavlik, and Mayweather have all done enough to be considered the best fighters in their division. However, they are not undisputed. There are 3 major belts out there. I don't know how someone can be an undisputed champ when someone else is walking around with a belt; calling himself a champion. My definition of an undisputed champ is simple; hold all 3 major titles at once. This is a black and white issue, there is no gray area.