Haye's Chin

[Shadows]

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.

[MJ406]

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.

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.

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.

[D-MiZe]

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.




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.



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.

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.

[daggum]

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.

[D-MiZe]

well taylor sorta. he stole all 4 belts off of hopkins but never defended all 4.

So he's not undisputed because he didn't defend?

****.

[daggum]

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.

[daggum]

So he's not undisputed because he didn't defend?

****.

well he didn't really beat hopkins so i thought i'd have a little dig at him for calling himself undisputed champ.

[D-MiZe]

well he didn't really beat hopkins so i thought i'd have a little dig at him for calling himself undisputed champ.

What?

[Shadows]

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.

[Sick/]

well he didn't really beat hopkins so i thought i'd have a little dig at him for calling himself undisputed champ.

Who didn't beat him?