Was David Haye Undisputed Cruiserweight Champion? Please vote!

In this type of situation its usually best to just agree to disagree but on this occassion the people who voted "yes" are so obviously and fundamentally wrong that even thats not really an option....atsch

 

All I will say is when Haye left the Cruiserweight there is no one ( and there still isnt ) who would have beat him!!!!!

 

Just watched the Enzo Mac fight again and Jimmy Lennon Jr announces the bout as being for the UNIFIED championship of the world.

 

Thats up to the indivdual, I know a few people don't recognize the WBO and thats their choice. I don't anyone who doesn't recognize the IBF. The way things are today I'd say the WBO is probably needed but the IBF def. is.

TBH whether the WBO should count is academic in this case anyway. We're talking about the IBF, and they disputed Hayes claim.

Theres no contradiction. 30 years ago there were 2 organizations to dispute claims, 10 years ago there were 3 to dispute claims and now there are 4 (pending the personal choice above).

Times have changed and with them what a fighter has to do to be considered undisputed champion.

You can argue this point till you're blue in the face, but you'll never change the defintion of a word. You're coming up with all these arguments to try and shoehorn "undisputed" in to fit what Haye achieved at Cruiserweight but its the wrong word and it will always be the wrong word.

 

But if you're going with what you bolded, you have to include every single organisation that claims to sanction a 'world championship'. WBC, WBO, WBA, IBF, WBU, Whatever the others are called. You can't dismiss other people's arbitrary lines and then draw your own.

 

Not sure whether Cobbler is playing Devil's advocate there, or making a good point.

The way I see 'undisputed' is that a person needs to hold all the (generally ackonowledged) belts in that division at that time. It doesnt happen often, which is why it's celebrated (rightly or wrongly).

Anything else is not 'undisputed'. That doesnt make a champion less or more of a champion, but it does not make him 'undisputed' regardless of whatever value you attach to the term.

Ergo... David Haye WAS #1 at CW. He WAS the linear champion. He WAS the best the division had to offer. He WAS NEVER undisputed.

 

And for the avoidance of doubt, I count the generally acknowledged as WBA, WBC, IBF and WBO.

And that's it.

And I forced myself to type the last one.

 

I'm not dismissing other peoples lines or imposing my own. I'm simply saying when you have a universally recognized governing body that you accept in every other area of the sport (like IBF) you can't just ignore one of there champions when it suits you and declare another fighter as "undisputed". Its totally inconsistant.

The IBO, WBU and, to a lesser extent, the WBO are a different case, they arn't unversally recognized, a lot people don't accept them like they do the big 3 organizations and IMHO its entirely a personal choice whether you want to give them the credence of giving them the status of the WBC, WBA and IBF.

 

Does the fact we are disputing his claim to being 'undisputed' immediately make the term 'undisputed' redundant?

Thought so.

.

 

Probably. Strictly speaking there are that many governing bodies that no boxer is ever going to be truly "undisputed".

I think for boxing you could read it as "undisputed by the credible governing bodies" (WBC, WBA, IBF and maybe WBO) but what you can't say is "undisputed by the credible governing bodies EXCEPT for one of them". Thats when a fighter def. isn't undisputed and thats whats happening here.

 

I think the better question would be: Was David Haye the Linear Cruiserweight Champion of the World?

 

When I think of undisputed I think of the likes of what Tyson did, so I say no.

A fighter must hold all WBC, WBA and IBF belts for me, although the water is increasingly becoming more murky with those belts losing a bit of status and others coming into the fray.

 

6 pages of replies...varied replies...to a question like this...on a boxing forum...shows there is something wrong with things...
if we can't agree on things like this....how are casual sports fans meant to make sense of boxing and world champions and who's best

 

Thats so true.