Was David Haye Undisputed Cruiserweight Champion? Please vote!

[Losfer_Words]

I know, I know, it's a stupid fucking question but some troll in the Haye Express disagrees and won't STFU so I thought I'd ask the question then post it in the thread to FURTHER corroborate fact. Haye held the WBA, WBC, WBO and Ring titles at cruiser and would have also held the IBF title had the belt not been stripped during the 2-fight Mormeck-O'Neil series. The WBA's guidelines on what is an Undisputed Champion clearly state:

"DEFINITION: The SUPER WORLD CHAMPION CATEGORY OR UNDISPUTED WORLD CHAMPION was created for those World Champions who hold the title of two or more organizations recognized by the WBA, like the World Boxing Council (WBC), the International Boxing Federation (IBF) and the World Boxing Organization (WBO)."

SOURCE: [Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

The joker can be found on page 8 and onwards:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Thanks again:good.

[Mazallan]

Haye beat every fighter worth fighting in the joke cruiserweight division. Seriously I hope Haye is never mentioned as a former cruiser champ again after the Valuev fight.

[Beeston Brawler]

He held the WBC and WBA titles as well as being the linear claimant.

It would have been good to add the IBF title to his collection, but it wasn't to be.

In summary.....

He held 2/3 titles and was linear - that's good enough for me, with the IBF as a caveat clearly.

[UndisputedUK]

He beat the WBA and WBC and Ring Champion away from home. He then beat the WBO champion. It's almost impossible to hold all the belts. In this case he is Undisputed because he has 3/4 and the Ring belt, which is far more valuable than the IBF alone in this case.

[mike464]

No. He had the WBC and WBA but didn't have the IBF.

[Losfer_Words]

No. He had the WBC and WBA but didn't have the IBF.

He would have had that strap as well had it not been stripped before he could fight for it^^^. He also held the lineal title at the weight (aka Ring title). Also, we're not talking directly about opinions- what do the WBA's guidelines say?^^^

[mike464]

He would have had that strap as well had it not been stripped before he could fight for it^^^. He also held the lineal title at the weight (aka Ring title). Also, we're not talking directly about opinions- what do the WBA's guidelines say?^^^If you're going to count beating someone who got stripped of the title (or beating the man who beat the man ... who beat the man who got stripped of the title) as having some claim on that title then it's possibly to have several undisputed champions at the same time.

If you refuse to fight a sanctioning body's mandatory challenger then you're rightfully not their champion anymore.

The Ring title and linear title are not the same thing and neither have anything to do with being undisputed champion.

[doug.ie]

in the same way that everyone called calzaghe undisputed champ...and lucian bute was sat at home looking at his ibf belt in a very confused manner

[Losfer_Words]

What were you saying about WBA guidelines?

What they deem as an 'undispusted' champion. There's a whole paragraph about the guidelines above^^^. Even leaving that aside, I don't think there is any doubt whatsoever that Haye was, without a doubt, the most standout fighter in the division as he held 4/5 belts and beat the best in the division. Cunningham's loss to Adamek proved that further, IMO.

So, by your reckoning, Lewis wasn't an Undisputed champion either as he was stripped as well?

EDIT: I've just noticed you edited your original post. As for the Ring title, it adds sustenance to the view that he was the best in the division in many people's eyes; obviously including mine as I see it as the lineal title. You are free to your opinion, though- I was just interested in what everyone would say and it's nice having different opinions that are well-reasoned as opposed to blind hate clouding people's (aka the general forum's) thoughts on subjects.

[dan-b]

He wasn't undisputed, as he didn't hold the IBF title.

[mike464]

What they deem as an 'undispusted' champion. There's a whole paragraph about the guidelines above^^^. Even leaving that aside, I don't think there is any doubt whatsoever that Haye was, without a doubt, the most standout fighter in the division as he held 4/5 belts and beat the best in the division. Cunningham's loss to Adamek proved that further, IMO.

So, by your reckoning, Lewis wasn't an Undisputed champion either as he was stripped as well?Yeah sorry I read that bit after my post.

It seems strange to take the WBA's definition of an undisputed champion what the idea has been around, and accepted to mean WBC, WBA and IBF champion, a long time before they mentioned in what is obviously a move to justify creating another belt. I don't think we can take them seriously. Besides, what if the WBC, say, created a completely different definition of an undisputed champion.

In my opinion Haye was by far the best cruiserweight, but what's boxing coming to if we're going to give people credit for things they haven't done yet. So many arguments could be resolved if people realise there's a difference between being the best and being the champion. You see people who support Wlad Klitschko and think he's the best trying to argue that he should be the undisputed champion because he holds (and they include the WBO, IBO and Ring titles) x out of y titles. If he's the best let him prove it.

And while Lewis was undoubtedly the best heavyweight in the world, he wasn't undisputed champion after he was stripped of the WBA title.

[trotter]

No, he wasn't in the traditional and technical sense, which meant holding the IBF, WBA and WBC

However we're in a transition period where people are beginning to call the recognised best in a division the 'undisputed' champ, in this modern sense Haye was as near as you can get

[GazOC]

No he wasn't. He was lineal and the best in the world at the weight but the IBF recognized someone else as champ (Cuningham) so by definition he wasn't 'undisputed champion'.

That said, I don't think he had anything left to prove at the weight.

[doug.ie]

so...what do we learn from this?...that the ibf title has now become worthless ?

march 2008...david haye was being regarded as 'undisputed' champion...but could steve cunningham holding his ibf title belt watching his tv not dispute it...even a little bit.

[djoc175]

No.He wasn't undisputed because of a technicality but common sense suggests he was.If you apply the everyday definition of undisputed you'd have to say that he was.Cunningham won a vacant title,is that really disputing the #1?

People who claim Haye wasn't usually use Adamek to support their claim which is clearly way off the mark since Adamek had only just stepped by that time and had done nothing of note at CW.

[doug.ie]

...

[doug.ie]

...

[doug.ie]

...

[doug.ie]

No.He wasn't undisputed because of a technicality but common sense suggests he was.If you apply the everyday definition of undisputed you'd have to say that he was.Cunningham won a vacant title,is that really disputing the #1?



common sense?...interpretations?..

technicality is exactly what we should go by...not 'common sense' {as everyone has their own idea of what 'common sense' is}

you say "cunningham won a vacant title".....won a what?...a "title"...so there you have it - a dispute.



saying that, i can see a valid point to what you are saying...but what you are saying is - who should be regarded as the true champ at the weight..and then you are right...
but 'undisputed' should not be used when talking about the best or real champ in this sense...as if mickey mouse held an ibf title for 2 days, then he is the dispute.




sorry...board was offline there and reposted what i thought didnt post.

[Cobbler]

Fairly pointless semantic argument.

[KCD]

No. He had the WBC and WBA but didn't have the IBF.


What i think.

Also he beat the weakest champion in Enzo.

I think Cunningham was the best of the 3 champs (Mormeck and Enzo being the others).

I was always under the thought that you had to hold the WBA,WBC and IBF, out of the three belts to be classed as undisputed.:huh

[doug.ie]

I was always under the thought that you had to hold the WBA,WBC and IBF, out of the three belts to be classed as undisputed.:huh

which is correct....and it doesnt even matter who the belt holders are...its about the validity of the belt that isnt reconised.
so, the debate isnt so much about haye being the best...it becomes the ibf title being meaningless as a 'world title' in a situation where someone like haye has wba wbc wbo

[Losfer_Words]

No.He wasn't undisputed because of a technicality but common sense suggests he was.If you apply the everyday definition of undisputed you'd have to say that he was.Cunningham won a vacant title,is that really disputing the #1?


This is my line of thinking as well. The term 'undisputed' is obviously open to interpretation, but the WBA do have a specific guideline on the matter and, by their definition (given on the first page), Haye IS an undisputed champion.

Fairly pointless semantic argument.

Pointless enough for you to post in the thread?:huh Go away then, Cobbler. You seem to get off of being the most condescending, pessimistic poster on here:roll:.

I was always under the thought that you had to hold the WBA,WBC and IBF, out of the three belts to be classed as undisputed.:huh

Not according to the WBA. I thought this would generate a bit of a debate and I'm glad I posted it now as there are plenty of conflicting views on the matter. All views are well-reasoned as well and completely contrary to the 'because I said so' attitude of the jokers on the general.

[Cobbler]

Pointless enough for you to post in the thread?:huh Go away then, Cobbler. You seem to get off of being the most condescending, pessimistic poster on here:roll:.



It is a pointless discussion. Whether Haye was or was not the number one cruiserweight is a discussion. It was fairly obvious to me that he was. He was clear champion. If people want to label that as 'undisputed' then fine.

I don't see the relevance in 'someone else had another trinket, so he wasn't undisputed'. Especially when we are then presumably distinguishing between the available trinkets themselves (I doubt anyone has held all the actually available 'world title' belts in a division for quite a while).

If the IBF had decided not to strip Oneill Bell, that wouldn't make Haye a better fighter. It wouldn't make his record better. So it is a meaningless distinction. It's like arguing whether a colour is light black or dark grey. We're both looking at the same thing.

I'd also note that a number of the people chipping in with the 'Haye didn't hold the IBF so wasn't undisputed' arguments are people who, in other contexts, will tell you that ABC belts are meaningless. If they're meaningless, then stop attaching meaning to them.

[trotter]

Let's be clear on one thing, undisputed isn't open to interpretation

If another sanctioning body have a different champ it's 'disputed', that's all there is to it !

It's become meaningless though as it's virtually impossible to do these days

[trotter]

I'd also note that a number of the people chipping in with the 'Haye didn't hold the IBF so wasn't undisputed' arguments are people who, in other contexts, will tell you that ABC belts are meaningless. If they're meaningless, then stop attaching meaning to them.

It isn't attaching meaning to them, it is simply observing the origins of the 'undisputed' issue

[mike464]

Too many people are getting confused about the question. It's not "In your opinion was Haye the best cruiserweight" but "Was he the undisputed cruiserweight champion". Being regarded as the best is not the same as being the champ otherwise there would be no point in having world titles.

In 1999 Holyfield had 2 of the 3 belts and was regarded as the best heavyweight in the world. He decided to fight Lewis for the undisputed title and it turned he wasn't the best after all.

[doug.ie]

is the ibf title a major boxing title?

or is it only a major title when the WBA WBC wbo are all held by different champions

[Cobbler]

Let's be clear on one thing, undisputed isn't open to interpretation

If another sanctioning body have a different champ it's 'disputed', that's all there is to it !

It's become meaningless though as it's virtually impossible to do these days

That's the whole problem though, it is open to interpretation. Which is what makes the phrase meaningless.

I mean, these days, it's hard enough to be undisputed WBA champion of a division!

[mike464]

For those saying Haye was undisputed because he beat the man who beat the man who was stripped of one of his three titles, what if he's been stripped of all three? What if in the meantime someone has unified all three again? We'd then have two 'undisputed' champions at the same time. What if they are all stripped and unified again? Three undisputed champions. Can you imagine 100 undisputed champions? That's even more ridiculous, if possible, than the idea of an undisputed champion while another guy still holds the IBF title.

It's a very extreme example but it illustrates why that definition of undisputed doesn't work at all.

[El Cepillo]

In my opinion, to be "Undisputed" you have to have the WBA, WBC and IBF titles.

For whatever reason, rightly or wrongly, Haye didn't have the IBF title and therefore he wasn't "Undisputed".

[toffeejack]

It's quite simple for me. He never won the IBF title so therefore he wasn't the undisputed champ.

[Larryboys]

For a long time an "undisputed champion" had to hold the WBA, WBC and IBF champions. So under that definition, no he wasn't. But lets face it guys, those days are gone. With the WBA making guys "super" champions it is now impossible to be the only guy holding a major belt in a division, plus there's wheter the WBO counts as a major title these days.

I regarded Haye as being the proper champion of his division and whether Steve Cunningham or that polish guy held a spare belt didn't matter, he was the champ from when he beat Mormeck until he vacated the title.

[achillesthegreat]

Technically he might not have had the IBF belt but the WBC and WBA are what matter more plus he was lineal and had the WBO.

[djoc175]

If the IBF had decided not to strip Oneill Bell, that wouldn't make Haye a better fighter. It wouldn't make his record better.

I think this is the bottom line

[trotter]

That's the whole problem though, it is open to interpretation.



Honestly chief, it really isn't, not if we all stick to the facts

It LITERALLY means you hold all the titles and there is no 'dispute'


It's so black and white, I can't believe people are struggling with this lol.

It's up there with Roach's 'anything above 140 is welterweight' argument that people seem to be buying into.

Only in boxing ...



p.s. fully agree it's meaningless, it only mattered when there were 2 or 3 belts. As soon as the WBO came along it started becoming redundant and it's unheard of now.

It just sounds good in promotions so people still use it - incorrectly

[Cobbler]

Honestly chief, it really isn't, not if we all stick to the facts

It LITERALLY means you hold all the titles and there is no 'dispute'


It's so black and white, I can't believe people are struggling with this lol.

It's up there with Roach's 'anything above 140 is welterweight' argument that people seem to be buying into.

Only in boxing ...



p.s. fully agree it's meaningless, it only mattered when there were 2 or 3 belts. As soon as the WBO came along it started becoming redundant and it's unheard of now.

It just sounds good in promotions so people still use it - incorrectly

Would agree with all of that.

[mike464]

I think this is the bottom lineThe only way the IBF would not have stripped Bell is if he hadn't ducked the mandatory challenger! In that case Haye probably wouldn't have got his hands on any titles.

[djoc175]

The only way the IBF would not have stripped Bell is if he hadn't ducked the mandatory challenger! In that case Haye probably wouldn't have got his hands on any titles.
That's out of Hayes hands though.Haye was not undisputed,that's all there is to it.
The fact that Bell was stripped does not lessen Hayes acheivement in any way.

[mike464]

That's out of Hayes hands though.Haye was not undisputed,that's all there is to it.
The fact that Bell was stripped does not lessen Hayes acheivement in any way.Of course it does. If Bell hadn't been stripped Haye would have ended up WBA, WBC and IBF champion - he'd be the undisputed champion which is clearly more of an achievement. But Bell was rightfully stripped because he didn't fight the guy the IBF saw as the most worthy contender.

[djoc175]

Of course it does. If Bell hadn't been stripped Haye would have ended up WBA, WBC and IBF champion - he'd be the undisputed champion which is clearly more of an achievement. But Bell was rightfully stripped because he didn't fight the guy the IBF saw as the most worthy contender.
What I mean is he still beat the same fighter in Mormeck regardless of whether or not he held the IBF.

[ad82]

He held the WBC and WBA titles as well as being the linear claimant.

It would have been good to add the IBF title to his collection, but it wasn't to be.

In summary.....

He held 2/3 titles and was linear - that's good enough for me, with the IBF as a caveat clearly.

He held 3 out of 4 titles. Please don't tell me the WBO is any less valued than the pathetic title stripping IBF, corrupt WBC and multi world champ in a division WBA.

[GazOC]

What I mean is he still beat the same fighter in Mormeck regardless of whether or not he held the IBF.

I agree, its not really that much more of an achievement if he beat the same fighter but got 3 belts instread of 2 because someone else got stripped.

[Losfer_Words]

He held 3 out of 4 titles. Please don't tell me the WBO is any less valued than the pathetic title stripping IBF, corrupt WBC and multi world champ in a division WBA.

Indeed. I forgot about this thread.

Brit Forum, if we go by the, 'he must have the IBF belt as it's worth more than the other shinys to undisputed status' arguement, would you say that Darchinyan was an undisputed champion then? I would and he didn't hold the WBO or Ring titles:think.

[GazOC]

He held 3 out of 4 titles. Please don't tell me the WBO is any less valued than the pathetic title stripping IBF, corrupt WBC and multi world champ in a division WBA.


Er...yes it generally is less valued than those other belts.

['Ben']

it's almost impossible to hold all four titles at once now! Haye was the undisputed cruiserweight champ without doubt.

[icemax]

Technically no, but i've voted yes because i'm a contrary cunt

[GazOC]

Technically no, but i've voted yes because i'm a contrary cunt

Well thats better than voting 'yes' because you don't understand what "undisputed" means. (no names, no packdrill).;)

[Losfer_Words]

I think people are getting too caught up in particulars. At the end of the day, Haye held 3/4 plus the Ring title and didn't have the IBF title as a result of it being stripped. If we're going to use the IBF as a necessity, then we could just say that prior to the IBF, 'undisputed' meant holding the WBA and WBC titles. Are we saying that, as Lewis was stripped during his reign, he wasn't undisputedly the best just because he never kept going back for vacant titles?

[darwoody]

For a long time an "undisputed champion" had to hold the WBA, WBC and IBF champions. So under that definition, no he wasn't. But lets face it guys, those days are gone. With the WBA making guys "super" champions it is now impossible to be the only guy holding a major belt in a division, plus there's wheter the WBO counts as a major title these days.

I regarded Haye as being the proper champion of his division and whether Steve Cunningham or that polish guy held a spare belt didn't matter, he was the champ from when he beat Mormeck until he vacated the title.
Agree with this.
The old idea of WBA/WBC/IBF is an outdated one. The IBF make it very hard for a fighter to pick up their belt sometimes. You have to work your way up their rankings gradually, sometimes fighting unknown fighters. Whilst this maybe a noble route to take, it doesn't always fit in to a promoters or fighters plans. It may also harm your credentials with the other sanctioning bodies.
Personally I think Haye did what he had to do at Cruiserweight, and a fight with Cunningham was a tough sell. Which is what Boxing usually boils down to.
I remember when Lennox Lewis became the Undisputed Champion and Herbie Hide was running around with his trinket claiming "How can he cll himself Undisputed while I'm around":nut
Incidentally Wikipedia, that great bastion of truth, has a list of Undisputed Champions, and Haye is on there:deal
[Only registered and activated users can see links]


P.S. Are there any Undisputed Champions out there at the minute?

[icemax]

Well thats better than voting 'yes' because you don't understand what "undisputed" means. (no names, no packdrill).;)

:good:yep

[Losfer_Words]

Agree with this.
The old idea of WBA/WBC/IBF is an outdated one. The IBF make it very hard for a fighter to pick up their belt sometimes. You have to work your way up their rankings gradually, sometimes fighting unknown fighters. Whilst this maybe a noble route to take, it doesn't always fit in to a promoters or fighters plans. It may also harm your credentials with the other sanctioning bodies.
Personally I think Haye did what he had to do at Cruiserweight, and a fight with Cunningham was a tough sell. Which is what Boxing usually boils down to.
I remember when Lennox Lewis became the Undisputed Champion and Herbie Hide was running around with his trinket claiming "How can he cll himself Undisputed while I'm around":nut
Incidentally Wikipedia, that great bastion of truth, has a list of Undisputed Champions, and Haye is on there:deal
[Only registered and activated users can see links]


P.S. Are there any Undisputed Champions out there at the minute?


I agree with that as well. I think a lot of people are letting their opinion cloud the reality of the title, though. I posted a link on the first page clarifying what 'UNDISPUTED' actually means in the eyes of the WBA- the world's oldest and, arguably, most established sanctioning body. According to the WBA's criteria Haye was, indeed, an 'undisputed' champion. It's written in black and white. As I said before, an opinion is one thing, but ignoring a source (a pretty substantial one at that) and fact, is quite another. It seems a lot of people are confused about what the title actually means.

[GazOC]

I think people are getting too caught up in particulars. At the end of the day, Haye held 3/4 plus the Ring title and didn't have the IBF title as a result of it being stripped. If we're going to use the IBF as a necessity, then we could just say that prior to the IBF, 'undisputed' meant holding the WBA and WBC titles. Are we saying that, as Lewis was stripped during his reign, he wasn't undisputedly the best just because he never kept going back for vacant titles?

For me if one of the "Big 3", maybe the "Big 4", governing bodies has another title claimant then the guy that holds the other belts isn't undisputed.

That doesn't mean Haye wasn't "the man" at Cruiser or that he had anything left to prove at the weight. Just that, strictly speaking, he wasn't undisputed because the IBF were disputing his claim. Whether we think this is a valid or worthwhile dispute is irrelevant.

Will all that matter when his Cruiserweight career is looks back on and assessed? Probably not IMHO.

(Prior to the IBF 'undisputed' did just mean holding the WBC and WBA belts but times have (unfortuneatly) changed since then)

[GazOC]

When Lennox was getting stripped he was still undisputedly the best heavyweight in the world but thats very different from being the undisputed champion. Not the same argument at all Losfer.

[mrbassie]

Yes he was. The linear championship is the only thing that matters. All the belts are devalued to an extent these days, some more than others, the ibf title at the time was as meaningless as Enzo's chrimbo ******* wbo belt simply because it wasn't held by Mormeck.

edit: it won't let me write c.r.a.c.k.e.r. How silly.

[whatcouldabeen]

yes

[Diablo]

All these corrupt sanctioning bodies must love these types of threads, with hardcore boxing fans stating the only thing that makes a undisputed champion is holding the WBC/IBF/WBA titles and paying all those lovely fees that go along with it.

Hard to apply when its so easy to be stripped...unless u spend the whole year fighting (often) joke tomato can mandatories.

And the WBA are the biggest joke in boxing...Its not enough to have a champion in each divison...those greedy cunts want 2.

Amazing the amount of ppl effectively defending these orgs.

[TFFP]

Is the WBA's defintion important? Their definition sucks. 2 or more titles? That means anybody with a combination of any two of the main 4 titles is an 'Undisputed champion'. Which is clearly nonsense.

You've always had to have the traditional 3 belts to be deemed an undisputed champion, I'm not sure why that would change. Haye didn't win the IBF on a technicality, but its tough luck really because he had the opportunity to fight for it.

In this day and age I think you even have to try to win all four, especially if the WBO holder is legit. Otherwise he's got a 'claim' too.

I can't say I actually give a toss about becoming 'undisputed champ', I'm more interested in who a guy beat, everybody knows the politics involved with attaining all of them.

[Mazallan]

Haye was the only cruiserweight worth acknowledging as a champ.

[GazOC]

All these corrupt sanctioning bodies must love these types of threads, with hardcore boxing fans stating the only thing that makes a undisputed champion is holding the WBC/IBF/WBA titles and paying all those lovely fees that go along with it.

Hard to apply when its so easy to be stripped...unless u spend the whole year fighting (often) joke tomato can mandatories.

And the WBA are the biggest joke in boxing...Its not enough to have a champion in each divison...those greedy cunts want 2.

Amazing the amount of ppl effectively defending these orgs.


Thats a big leap of <ahem!> 'logic'. I'd say most people on that side of the argument are just defending the correct use of the word "undisputed" which a lot of people seem to having trouble with....

Its nothing to do with sticking up for the orgs, people arn't saying that IBF belt was important or that Hayes career at Cruiser is devalued because he didn't win the IBF belt, just that its a fact that he was never the undisputed champion.

[djoc175]

I'm more interested in who a guy beat
Definitely.
When looking back at somebodys record,surely you'd place more significance on who he fought/beat rather than what alphabet titles were at stake

[carlos1000]

The ABC titles aren't too relevant here. To say that the IBF title holder could dispute Haye's claim is as ridiculous as saying that a three fight novice could also dispute his claim, on the basis that it is his own personal opinion that he is better than Haye. Absurd. Haye was undisputed champ, clearly. And he was announced as such too.

[GazOC]

The ABC titles aren't too relevant here. To say that the IBF title holder could dispute Haye's claim is as ridiculous as saying that a three fight novice could also dispute his claim, on the basis that it is his own personal opinion that he is better than Haye. Absurd. Haye was undisputed champ, clearly. And he was announced as such too.

No, its not at all. What a load of crap.

[TBooze]

By definition you cannot be an undisputed champion, as you would never fight, because no one would dispute your claim...

But that is literal

Haye was:

'The Generally Considered Cruiserweight Champion of the World'

[PaddyD1983]

Linear - yes.

Undisputed - no.

Not sure it makes any difference in reality.

[dan-b]

Can't believe people are still debating this, he wasn't undisputed champion. If you're going to debate anything, debate the importance of alphabet titles and the relevance of the term "undisputed".

[PaddyD1983]

Can't believe people are still debating this, he wasn't undisputed champion. If you're going to debate anything, debate the importance of alphabet titles and the relevance of the term "undisputed".

:good

[Losfer_Words]

Definitely.
When looking back at somebodys record,surely you'd place more significance on who he fought/beat rather than what alphabet titles were at stake

That's not the arguement at all, Djoc. Someone can be an 'undisputed champ' and still have a thin resume. Of course records mean more but this is another debate entirely. Almost 90-20 now. I'm suprised this thread is still going, TBH.

[dan-b]

That's not the arguement at all, Djoc. Someone can be an 'undisputed champ' and still have a thin resume. Of course records mean more but this is another debate entirely. Almost 90-20 now. I'm suprised this thread is still going, TBH.

I'm surprised at how many people have voted incorrectly.

[Losfer_Words]

I'm surprised at how many people have voted incorrectly.

Why? As I said before, the WBA's guidelines on the matter are in print for all to see. Everyone else seems to be staunchly supporting an outdated opinion they hold.

[GazOC]

I'm surprised at how many people have voted incorrectly.


I'm amazed. This isn't an opinion issue or a gray area where we should ask how prestigous the IBF belt was, whether Haye was a better fighter than Cunningham etc.

Its whether you understand what the word "undisputed" means, not what you want it to mean or whether Haye deserved to be undisputed champ.

[Primadonna Kool]

No..

[GazOC]

Why? As I said before, the WBA's guidelines on the matter are in print for all to see. Everyone else seems to be staunchly supporting an outdated opinion they hold.


So the WBA draw an arbitary line in the sand and everyone is supposed throw away the univerally used definition of the word "undisputed"?

[Losfer_Words]

So the WBA draw an arbitary line in the sand and everyone is supposed throw away the univerally used definition of the word "undisputed"?

Yes.







This thread has gone on for too long now- we're all going round in circles:lol:.

[TFFP]

There are no circles, its a straight line if anything. He wasn't an undisputed champion, thats all there is to it. The only argument is how much it matters in this context. I'd say not a whole lot, but then again if he spent some of the time that he has wasted doing nothing at heavyweight fighting for the IBF title against Steve Cunningham there wouldn't even be a discussion.

[GazOC]

This thread has gone on for too long now- we're all going round in circles:lol:.

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....:patsch;)

[Losfer_Words]

So, would we call Vic Darchinyan an undisputed champion then? I would. But just because he held the IBF as well as the WBA and WBC titles, that makes his undisputed credentials rocket more-so than someone who holds 2/3 of those titles with another one as well as the Ring championship? Saying that an undisputed champion can't be undisputed with the WBO, but can be with the IBF just seems like an outdated arguement. The WBO is here to stay and, rightly or wrongly, in many people's eyes it is a real world championship.

Those saying 'you must have the IBF as well in this day and age' are almost contradicting themselves as the WBO could therefore dispute a champion being undisputed. If we're going by 'that was what undisputed was 10 years ago' then we may as well say 'well 30 years ago you'd have to have the WBA and WBC straps to be undisputed so that still applies today'.

[Swansea Osprey]

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

[2tall2slow2]

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

[GazOC]

So, would we call Vic Darchinyan an undisputed champion then? I would. But just because he held the IBF as well as the WBA and WBC titles, that makes his undisputed credentials rocket more-so than someone who holds 2/3 of those titles with another one as well as the Ring championship? Saying that an undisputed champion can't be undisputed with the WBO, but can be with the IBF just seems like an outdated arguement. The WBO is here to stay and, rightly or wrongly, in many people's eyes it is a real world championship.

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.


Those saying 'you must have the IBF as well in this day and age' are almost contradicting themselves as the WBO could therefore dispute a champion being undisputed. If we're going by 'that was what undisputed was 10 years ago' then we may as well say 'well 30 years ago you'd have to have the WBA and WBC straps to be undisputed so that still applies today'.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.

[Cobbler]

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 the wrong word 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.

[PaddyD1983]

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.

[PaddyD1983]

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.

[GazOC]

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.

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.

[PaddyD1983]

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

Thought so.

.

[GazOC]

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.

[djanders]

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

[JonOli]

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.

[doug.ie]

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

[GazOC]

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

:lol: Thats so true.

[Cobbler]

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.

This was my point though when my first response in this thread was to say that it is a menaingless semantic debate (although apparantly that offended Losfer Words..)

The word undisputed has a dictionary definition. TBooze nailed it when he said that there will never actually be a literally 'undisputed' champion, as such a person would have no opponents. A challenger, by definition, disputes the champions right to remain champion. The word came into use in boxing when there were more than one 'champion' in a weight division. Before then, of course, you knew who the champion was - he was the guy wearing the belt. The use of the word 'undisputed' champion was in itself a recognition that there was a problem - people no longer knew who the 'champion' of a division was. So it made sense in the days when there were two belts to recognise the greater achievement of a fighter who held both, or all three when it came about that there were three belts, by use of the (logically meaningless) construction 'undisputed champion'.

It no longer makes any sense. There are so many belts that the term is meaningless. It's basically next to impossible for anyone to actually hold them all. The WBA even manages to have more than one champion themselves in some divisions! The very fact that we can have a six page thread on what constitutes being undisputed with different logically sustainable arguments being put forward for different viewponts illustrates that the phrase is no longer viable.

[Cobbler]

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

That's also a much easier question. The answer is yes.

[PaddyD1983]

That's also a much easier question. The answer is yes.

:lol:

On this, I can agree.

[TBooze]

That's also a much easier question. The answer is yes.

Actully it is a even more complex question as so many different intangibles make up lineage.

As I pointed out we have literally never had an undisputed champion as someone is always willing to fight and dispute your claim...

[Cobbler]

Actully it is a even more complex question as so many different intangibles make up lineage.


It can be complex question. I'm not sure it is in this case. Is there an argument that Bell vs Mormeck did not create a new lineage?

[GazOC]

The lt heavies are a PITA. Fucking Erdei!!

[Iron Fist Joe]

I'd like to point out - is it even sensible to deny the existence of the WBO these days?

To the best of my understanding - I could be wrong, but if you're a champion with an organisation (big 4) - you're no longer ranked by another organisation.

Seeing as how the "big 3" all recognise the WBO - I can't see how others can't - otherwise old timers can still apply the same to the IBF, and if you're old enough - to the WBC.

Obviously - they wouldn't be taken seriously if that was the case, so why should the WBO be held separately - they've had some pretty great champions in recent times, and it's the fighter that makes the belt now.

Are there any other organisations that the big 4 will refuse to rank you if you are a champion of? If not - then I think the time for questioning the legitmacy of the WBO is past.

[mike464]

I'd like to point out - is it even sensible to deny the existence of the WBO these days?

To the best of my understanding - I could be wrong, but if you're a champion with an organisation (big 4) - you're no longer ranked by another organisation.

Seeing as how the "big 3" all recognise the WBO - I can't see how others can't - otherwise old timers can still apply the same to the IBF, and if you're old enough - to the WBC.

Obviously - they wouldn't be taken seriously if that was the case, so why should the WBO be held separately - they've had some pretty great champions in recent times, and it's the fighter that makes the belt now.

Are there any other organisations that the big 4 will refuse to rank you if you are a champion of? If not - then I think the time for questioning the legitmacy of the WBO is past.But even if you count the WBO Haye wasn't undisputed. He wasn't champion of the IBF.

[JonOli]

Ring Magazine has refused in the near past to recognize WBO world champions, I'm not sure if they do now.

[Cobbler]

Ring Magazine has refused in the near past to recognize WBO world champions, I'm not sure if they do now.

Just checked Kelly Pavlik, Wladimir Klitschko and Tim Bradley in their rankings and all of their WBO titles are noted, so seems they do.

[TBooze]

And for what it is worth (little), I believe Farhood in this months Boxing Monthly wrote an article ranking the wanke... rankers in which he scored ten points to his highest ranked of the alphabet champs, seven, for second, five for third and three for fourth: The list came out: WBO 208 PTS, IBF 195, WBC 176 and WBA 156...

[Iron Fist Joe]

But even if you count the WBO Haye wasn't undisputed. He wasn't champion of the IBF.

I'm not debating that - different argument,, I'm discussing the merits of counting the wbo.

[Ilesey]

It's a term that is tossed around and it sound great but can be debatable. Was he undisputed by the definition - I don't know. Was he the best at that time - yes, he was.

[Farmboxer]

What's important is that Haye has done nothing at heavyweight except run from Vitali and Vlad. Holyfield had to work to get a title shot at heavyweight.

[beecho1988]

Yes

[trotter]

As I pointed out we have literally never had an undisputed champion as someone is always willing to fight and dispute your claim...

Another red herring. It's undisputed champion. So only other champions dispute your claim to be champion of the world.

As Cobbler says, there are so many belts now it's become impossible to achieve and therefore irrelevant. But that's what it means.

[KERRZO]

Yes

[Neverchair]

He did hold all the belts (although not the IBF at the same time as the others) and beat the best out there on their own turf.

You can argue the technicalities all day if you like but thats really just nitpicking.

To all intents and purposes Haye was regarded by most as the undisputed champion.

[sitiyzal]

Considering Bell never lost the IBF belt in the ring, Mormeck & Haye had a greater claim to it than Cunnigham.

[TBooze]

Another red herring. It's undisputed champion. So only other champions dispute your claim to be champion of the world.

As Cobbler says, there are so many belts now it's become impossible to achieve and therefore irrelevant. But that's what it means.


But even so, we have never had an Undisupted World Champion, because someone will always dispute a claim...

[trotter]

But even so, we have never had an Undisupted World Champion, because someone will always dispute a claim...

No, the origins of the undisputed term in this context come from having 2 governing bodies. Hence who the 'champion' is was in dispute.

Not the same as having challengers.

[whatcouldabeen]

yes he was

[trotter]

It's at this point I'm giving up

It couldn't be more black and white, he didn't own all the belts, hence he wasn't

If people can't distinguish between 'undisputed' and 'widely regarded as,' that's their problem lol

[indie_uk1]

Judging by Kerzo's picture i think we can alla gree that he was undisputed chammpion

fuck the ibf title! Job done , argument over.....

[whatcouldabeen]

Judging by Kerzo's picture i think we can alla gree that he was undisputed chammpion

fuck the ibf title! Job done , argument over.....

put that in your pipe and smoke it! :good

[Cobbler]

No, the origins of the undisputed term in this context come from having 2 governing bodies. Hence who the 'champion' is was in dispute.

Not the same as having challengers.

So you are, if I understand, going for the literal interpretation that someone is not undisputed if there is someone else holding something that calls itself a world title? Ie. Hopkins would not have been considered undisputed even after beating De La Hoya, because Eugenio Monteiro held the WBU 'World Title'. Whereas others would have considered Hopkins 'undisputed champion' even before he added the WBO title to the three he already held...

[whatcouldabeen]

So you are, if I understand, going for the literal interpretation that someone is not undisputed if there is someone else holding something that calls itself a world title? Ie. Hopkins would not have been considered undisputed even after beating De La Hoya, because Eugenio Monteiro held the WBU 'World Title'. Whereas others would have considered Hopkins 'undisputed champion' even before he added the WBO title to the three he already held...

what a loada cobblers, if you don't mind me saying :good

[Cobbler]

what a loada cobblers, if you don't mind me saying :good

Are you still here? Planning to actually contribute anything to the forum at any point?

[PaddyD1983]

It really does discombobulate my brain that this is still raging on.

Haye did not hold the IBF ergo he was not undisputed.

Close thread.

[whatcouldabeen]

Are you still here? Planning to actually contribute anything to the forum at any point?

no pun intended

[TBooze]

No, the origins of the undisputed term in this context come from having 2 governing bodies. Hence who the 'champion' is was in dispute.

Not the same as having challengers.

You are trying to put a never properly defined boxing meaning on an already dictionary defined word. There has never been, nor likely will there ever be an undisputed champion, in any literal sense.

[CarlosHickman]

Technically, David Haye; who I am a massiva fan of was not undisputed cruiserweight champion. He held WBC, WBO and the WBA Super titles. At the time of his reign there was a WBA recognised champion and an IBF champion. Therefore his title was disputed. All other belts from other organisations are ignored. The only undisputed cruiserweight champion was Evander Holyfield. This is not to say David Haye is not an outstanding cruiser. Rules are rules and when you start bending them to suit what is the point?

[UndisputedUK]

Haye was clearly the best Cruiserweight in the world. He proved it.
WBA, WBC, Ring Champ and then WBO.

So whilst technically not the Undisputed champion of old WBC,WBA, IBF etc, things have moved on since the early/mid 1980's:-

The WBO are here.
The Ring belt is starting to take off.
We have multiple Interim, Super, Regular titles etc.

It's almost impossible to hold onto all the belts due to mandatories.

Just think about it, Pacman is WBO champ, doesn't mean he's worse than any Undisputed Welterweight Champion. (if there was one)

Years ago, there was only one or two champs. Then WBA and WBC. The more belts there are the harder to unify and hold onto them.

To be truly Undisputed means to be generally considered by nearly everyone to be the best at the weight and to hold a title or titles there. You shouldn't all of a sudden become a worse thought of fighter if the IBF strips you of one belt. The most important aspect of this is to get something linear in place. When fighters retire or move up in weight then obviously a paper champion or champions will exist for a while.

[moorser]

the way i see it is that the ring mag champ is the cHAMP

simple reason they are unbiased in their rankings

[Cobbler]

the way i see it is that the ring mag champ is the cHAMP

simple reason they are unbiased in their rankings

Of course they're not unbiased. The rankings are done by people, people have biases.

[Boxed Ears]

It's always disputed, but I consider 3/4 of the major sanctioning bodies to be undisputed and the Ring title is the linear/a lineal title.

[howarya]

dont think he won the IBF

[Cobbler]

dont think he won the IBF

But he did beat someone who had beaten the IBF champion and the title was never lost in the ring...

[TBooze]

the way i see it is that the ring mag champ is the cHAMP

simple reason they are unbiased in their rankings

Yes of course, The Ring has never taken bribes to rate fighters in it's entire history.....

[Laikaka]

Sad that boxing's come to this. The alphabets actions have largely made the term both unobtainable but also now practically irrelevant.
If Haye was undisputed then was Sugar Ray Leonard undisputed middleweight champ? No, neither were.

At least the Ring scandal was addressed and put right (30 + years ago now) - unlike the alphabets who are still up to no good. Surely in comparison, an organisation that is actually running the sport and demands and accepts money to sanction it's own title fights is a far, far greater concern.

[Neverchair]

Haye was clearly the best cruiserweight out there, held every title except the IBF and does anyone really think the IBF champion would have beaten Haye? Doubtful.

The WBO is gaining a lot more worth as is the Ring belt and as such Haye deserves to be called undisputed. After all how many more alphabet belts will appear in the future?

The definition of "undisputed" really needs to be rethought.

[TBooze]

The definition of "undisputed" really needs to be rethought.

Without dispute.;)