Haye's Chin

i still maintain that hayes shin at HW is still a bit of an unknown quantity. yes at CW he was dropped several times (and still cane back to win as well) but you have to remember that he was killing himself to make the weight. look at cotto at LWW he was often found on queer street but as soon as he moved up to his natural weight class hes looked very solid; taking punishment and alot of flush shots from SSM, clottey and margarito*. we won't know how good hayes chin is until he is hit by someone, at HW. i will say this though haye is a very well conditioned athlete, he has good reflexes and i dont think he has the stamina problems he did in his earlier days. i wouldn't be surprised if he had a better chin than alot of people think.

hayes chin is a bit underrated imo, he doesnt have a great or even good chin by any means. but its not a glass chin like khans or maccarinelis. atleast hayes been dropped by guys who can bang a bit, unlike khan and enzo. and he always gets up, unlike khan and enzo. down 3 times, mock had him badly hurt. but it was just his second fight, give him a break. against thompson it was all fatigue, his legs were caving in regardless of the punches. and then its mormeck whos a world class fighter. his chin isnt realiable, but it isnt glass eighter. ppl seem to forget ppl are supposed to get hurt when they are tagged clean, especially at the higher weights. ppl are too quick to say anytime someone doesnt have a great chin automaticly its shit instead, like theres nothing inbetween. hayes chin is inbetween, its decent.

made in China!!

yes the wba. only the wba. not by people who know what the word undisputed means. boxing fans are easily fooled. explains mayweather's ppv numbers. Haye was undisputed champion, Bell became undisputed champion but was stripped of the IBF title for fighting Mormeck, Mormeck then won and held the WBC WBA and Ring magazine titles, Haye then beat Mormeck and then went on to capture Enzo's paper belt, Cunningham was won a paper belt. Almost every one who holds 3 belts and the ring title is considered undisputed champion.

i was pretty sure barrett knocked him down, with accumulation not with one single punch - that is why some haye supporters think he wasnt down. he definitely was rocked to be sure in that fight. anyways, as i have been saying for years, "glass chin" is BS phrase when talking about pro fighters. damn near everyone gets "caught." glass chin is derogitory IMO. i would only think of something like that if a fighter went down in almost every single fight, and stayed down. people who get up usually dont have "glass chins," but have simply been caught at the right moment, or right place, by a solid punch. so, really, arguing over how many times a fighter has been down is rediculous. extremely rediculous.

Undisputed Mormeck was the guy to beat and Haye beat him. Had 3 of the major belts and had beat all the relevant fighters in his division. He was considered undisputed by the WBA. Lets see what happens when he fights Valuev, if he's announced as the former undisputed champion of cw division. that's inconsequential .. I already know that ... Mormeck lost his titles to Bell and won them back. Bell had to vacate his IBF, but was considered undisputed when he added the WBA and WBC to his IBF .. IBF+WBA+WBC=undisputed. the WBA is the only one that uses the definition of having the WBA + two other major titles equaling undisputed. I know you responded to the Holyfield + Bell bits .. regarding their undisputed claims but how come you have no response for Tyson having the WBA-WBC and IBF belts and being called undisputed? already mentioned but same thing with Bernard Hopkins, who had the IBF & WBC belts when he beat Trinidad for the WBA and was called undisputed. you can say what you want about the WBA's definition of Undisputed but a majority of the boxing community sees it as having the WBA, WBC and IBF titles until that definition changes. that's what im going by to refer to a fighter as undisputed or not call it a technicality but having IBF+WBA+WBC=undisputed.

actually he was stripped and rightfully so for facing manfredo over robert steiglitz. he didn't have the belt anymore thus he was not undisputed. he had it at one time but he didn't follow the rules so it's not his anymore. he had 3 belts and an invisible 4th belt. according to you chad dawson who has no belts at all right now just needs the wbo and wba belts and he's undisputed champ. You could look it at that way, yeah. But in reality, those guys had them all at once, or should have.

Taylor was undisputed because no one actually beat him for those belts; he had to vacate the WBA and was stripped of the IBF. Same thing with Calzaghe. He had to vacate the IBF. No one beat him for it. So when he beat Kessler it should have been for all four. If you have three and had to vacate or was stripped of the fourth, why are you not undisputed? No one beat you for that belt. actually he was stripped and rightfully so for facing manfredo over robert steiglitz. he didn't have the belt anymore thus he was not undisputed. he had it at one time but he didn't follow the rules so it's not his anymore. he had 3 belts and an invisible 4th belt. according to you chad dawson who has no belts at all right now just needs the wbo and wba belts and he's undisputed champ.

Well Khan's also been down 4 or 5 times for his career right?

well taylor sorta. he stole all 4 belts off of hopkins but never defended all 4. calzaghe never was since he only had 3 at one time. yes if we go back 20 years when only 3 belts were around then he would undisputed but since we live in the present day you need 4 to be undisputed. don't be fooled by the undisputed tag some people throw around when they don't know the words definition. the very claim of having 3 out of 4 of something and being undisputed is laughable. Taylor was undisputed because no one actually beat him for those belts; he had to vacate the WBA and was stripped of the IBF. Same thing with Calzaghe. He had to vacate the IBF. No one beat him for it. So when he beat Kessler it should have been for all four. If you have three and had to vacate or was stripped of the fourth, why are you not undisputed? No one beat you for that belt.

So he's not undisputed because he didn't defend? Cunt. :nonono: well he didn't really beat hopkins so i thought i'd have a little dig at him for calling himself undisputed champ.

Mormeck was the guy to beat and Haye beat him. Had 3 of the major belts and had beat all the relevant fighters in his division. He was considered undisputed by the WBA. Lets see what happens when he fights Valuev, if he's announced as the former undisputed champion of cw division. yes the wba. only the wba. not by people who know what the word undisputed means. boxing fans are easily fooled. explains mayweather's ppv numbers.

Both Taylor and Calzaghe have been undisupted champs. And apparently Haye. I deleted my post because I thought you were talking about Holyfield still, not Bell. But yeah, you're right. I admit when I'm wrong. well taylor sorta. he stole all 4 belts off of hopkins but never defended all 4. calzaghe never was since he only had 3 at one time. yes if we go back 20 years when only 3 belts were around then he would undisputed but since we live in the present day you need 4 to be undisputed. don't be fooled by the undisputed tag some people throw around when they don't know the words definition. the very claim of having 3 out of 4 of something and being undisputed is laughable.

thanks for all the initial responses. didn't make this as a hate thread, I've just heard so much about Haye having a glass jaw and wanted to see how many times he's officially been knocked down 3 times in 23 fights isn't too too terrible. anyway, onto that undisputed talk. WBA, WBC and WBO are the major belts. IBF just looks good. you probably know this by now, but the WBO was the last of the alphabet orgs to be founded. and had to gain credibility over time. :nonono: Did you know Holyfield only held the IBF, WBC and WBA to become the undisputed champion of the cruiserweight division? Ooh, looks like a win. :lol1: you could say it's a win, except the WBO was just getting created. the term Undisputed originally came from holding the WBC-WBA and IBF titles at the same time Mike Tyson also didn't win the WBO belt, yet when he held the 3 above mentioned belts he was called undisputed same goes for O'Neil Bell, which you already mentioned. in the examples of Tyson, Bell and Holyfield .. they were all undisputed and it had nothing to do with the WBO title (rather the WBA-WBC and IBF belts) **Haye holding the WBC-WBA and winning the WBO, you could call him the unified champ (like when Juan Diaz had the WBA-IBF and WBO) but not undisputed.

the only recent undisputed champ was hopkins. everyone else was an imposter. do you work for the wba or something? just cause they call someone undisputed cause they don't like the wbo doesn't mean you have to buy into their lies. grow a brain. don't be the wba's muppet. Both Taylor and Calzaghe have been undisupted champs. And apparently Haye. At the time? He held them in 2006, when WBO was a major belt. I deleted my post because I thought you were talking about Holyfield still, not Bell. But yeah, you're right. I admit when I'm wrong.

the only recent undisputed champ was hopkins. everyone else was an imposter. do you work for the wba or something? just cause they call someone undisputed cause they don't like the wbo doesn't mean you have to buy into their lies. grow a brain. don't be the wba's muppet. The only thing I have to say is...

the only recent undisputed champ was hopkins. everyone else was an imposter. do you work for the wba or something? just cause they call someone undisputed cause they don't like the wbo doesn't mean you have to buy into their lies. grow a brain. don't be the wba's muppet. Jermain Taylor beat Hopkins for all 4 belts so wouldn't that make him undisputed?

Bell only held the IBF, WBA and WBC and was recognised as the undisputed champ. Looks like I just won.. again. :lol1: the only recent undisputed champ was hopkins. everyone else was an imposter. do you work for the wba or something? just cause they call someone undisputed cause they don't like the wbo doesn't mean you have to buy into their lies. grow a brain. don't be the wba's muppet.

:nonono: Did you know Holyfield only held the IBF, WBC and WBA to become the undisputed champion of the cruiserweight division? Ooh, looks like a win. :lol1: fail fail fail fail the wbo wasn't even around then. nice try. please fail again.

Bell only held the IBF, WBA and WBC and was recognised as the undisputed champ. Looks like I just won.. again. :lol1: But those were the only major belts at the time. He had them all. 3/3 . Haye didn't. :)