Comments Thread For: David Haye: I'm Expecting Wladimir To Fight, Not Vitali

[Dave Rado]

How can he be undisputed champion if he doesn't have the WBA or WBC belt? he is the No.1 HW in the world Lewis was the undisputed champ cos he held all the belts Wlad doesn't hold all the belts there is a difference between lineal and undisputed champ.

Lewis only had the three main belts for two fights and never held the WBO belt. For his last seven fights he only held between one and two of the three main belts (he was stripped of the WBA one immediately, and was stripped of the IBF one before he fought Vitali). But he was still the undisputed champion from the moment he beat Briggs and won the lineal title. The lineal champion is THE world champion. The alphabet belts aren't worth shit.

That definition of undisputed champion is ridiculously outdated nowadays. It's virtually impossible to win all four main belts and completely impossible to hang on to them all, and no one cares about them any more because the sanctioning bodies are all so corrupt and there are far too many of them. And they have nothing to do with who THE world champion is any more, in any case. The lineal champion is the undisputed champion. If Mayweather and Pacquiao fight, the winner will be the undisputed Welterweight champion regardless of the fact that neither holds any belts. Hatton was the undisputed Jr Welterweight champion when he fought Pacquiao, although he held no belts. Barrera became the undisputed Featherweight champion when he beat Hamed, although neither held any belts. Martinez is the undisputed Middleweight champion, although he doesn't hold any alphabet belts.

[cklmaced]

Lewis only had the three main belts for two fights and never held the WBO belt. For his last seven fights he only held between one and two of the three main belts. But he was still the undisputed champion from the moment he beat Briggs and won the lineal title. The lineal champion is THE world champion. The alphabet belts aren't worth shit.

That definition of undisputed champion is ridiculously outdated nowadays. It's virtually impossible to win all four main belts and completely impossible to hang on to them all, and no one cares about them any more because the sanctioning bodies are all so corrupt and there are far too many of them. And they have nothing to do with who THE world champion is any more, in any case. The lineal champion is the undisputed champion. If Mayweather and Pacquiao fight, the winner will be the undisputed Welterweight champion regardless of the fact that neither holds any belts. Hatton was the undisputed Jr Welterweight champion when he fought Pacquiao, although he held no belts. Barrera became the undisputed Featherweight champion when he beat Hamed, although neither held any belts.

No you are completly wrong the undisputed champion is the guy who has all the belts that is the defination not some way you want to view it. Look it up I can agree with your lineal champion statement my point was there were posts with different views on the defination of the lineal champion.

[Dave Rado]

No you are completly wrong the undisputed champion is the guy who has all the belts that is the defination not some way you want to view it.

It's a totally outdated and meaningless definition nowadays and no boxing historian would use those words in that sense any more.

The word "undisputed" means "there is no dispute about it". And in that true sense of the word undisputed, what I wrote is true.

[cklmaced]

It's a totally outdated and meaningless definition nowadays and no boxing historian would use those words in that sense any more.

The word "undisputed" means "there is no dispute about it". And in that true sense of the word undisputed, what I wrote is true.

I get your point but that still doesn't make it true, the defination is a boxer who is recognised as champion by all the major organisations. I know that is difficult to do now but if you stay in your division it still can be done. Hence why Khan vs Bradley will be such a huge fight if it happens.

[Joeyzagz]

Lewis only had the three main belts for two fights and never held the WBO belt. For his last seven fights he only held between one and two of the three main belts (he was stripped of the WBA one immediately, and was stripped of the IBF one before he fought Vitali). But he was still the undisputed champion from the moment he beat Briggs and won the lineal title. The lineal champion is THE world champion. The alphabet belts aren't worth shit.

That definition of undisputed champion is ridiculously outdated nowadays. It's virtually impossible to win all four main belts and completely impossible to hang on to them all, and no one cares about them any more because the sanctioning bodies are all so corrupt and there are far too many of them. And they have nothing to do with who THE world champion is any more, in any case. The lineal champion is the undisputed champion. If Mayweather and Pacquiao fight, the winner will be the undisputed Welterweight champion regardless of the fact that neither holds any belts. Hatton was the undisputed Jr Welterweight champion when he fought Pacquiao, although he held no belts. Barrera became the undisputed Featherweight champion when he beat Hamed, although neither held any belts. Martinez is the undisputed Middleweight champion, although he doesn't hold any alphabet belts.

For a Klitschko fan you are a really good poster. Very refreshing to hear logic, instead of Vagina, Coward, b.tch, vagina, red k, ignore, "Dont talk sh.t about Wlad"

You got your facts right, would green K if I could.

[Dubblechin]

So, let me get this straight. Tomasz Adamek signed to fight Wladimir Klitschko in September. But the contract says Vitali can show up and fight him if Wlad loses before then or if Wlad simply fights Haye in July and can't get ready to fight Tomas fast enough.

Then Wlad signed to fight Haye, but if Wlad doesn't heal in time to fight Haye, Vitali will fight Haye and Wlad will fight Tomasz.

So, what happens if Vitali loses to Solis? What happens if there is some controversy and the WBC demands Solis (or Vitali) get an immediate rematch?

Does Wlad have to fight Haye and Adamek in the span of two months? What if there is controversy in the Wlad-Haye fight and a rematch is warranted (as was the case with Lewis-Holyfield 1)?

They can't push the Adamek fight back because he's opening a new stadium with that fight.

If Vitali and Wlad lose, does Adamek still have to fight a Klitschko in a non-title fight? Are they going to hold him to a deal?

Wlad and Vitali are not the same guy. They don't represent the same organization. The WBC has their own rules, the IBF and WBO have theirs. They all have different timelines for mandatories. The brothers themselves have different strengths and weaknesses.

The fact that they have a "plan" to keep the heavyweight championship SPLIT angers me to no end. The heavyweight championship isn't a tag team match. The heavyweight champion is the ONE man who can beat all others.

Vitali and Wlad could determine who the real champ is by simply fighting each other. They are considered the top TWO right now. We don't need FIVE guys to settle this.

But they refuse to fight and, worse than that, act like they are one entity and sign deals that way.

They have done more damage to this division (and the sport) by refusing to fight and keeping the heavyweight championship split ON PURPOSE than any two guys I can ever remember.

Signing to fight guys two and three fights down the road is just bad business, imo. But two guys acting like they're one guy and mixing and matching guys they have signed deals with is even worse.

I didn't think Chisora "deserved' a title shot, but Wlad signed a deal with him TWICE. Chisora has been training for a title fight since last October. Five months in camp is a long time to go just to get screwed.

Seems like the Klitschkos have totally screwed Adamek in all this, too. And may screw him again, depending on the outcomes of their next fights.

I hope Solis wins. Then again, if Solis wins, Odlanier will probably have to fight Vitali or Wlad next. And if Vitali can't fight, Odlanier will probably have to wait to make a defense until Wlad fights Haye and Adamek first.

ARRGHHH.

The sooner these two brothers are beltless the better. The division needs one champ, and they seem determined to screw the division and everyone who challenges for a belt they have.

[Dave Rado]

I get your point but that still doesn't make it true, the defination is a boxer who is recognised as champion by all the major organisations. I know that is difficult to do now but if you stay in your division it still can be done. Hence why Khan vs Bradley will be such a huge fight if it happens.

No, Khan vs,. Bradley will be huge because they are the clear #1 and #2 and because it will be for the lineal and Ring titles. The alphabet belts are irrelevant. And the winner will not be undisputed by your definition - the IBF champion is Kaizer Mabuza and no one gives a damn about the Khan-Bradley winner fighting Mabuza, who is not a top 10 fighter. Even McCloskey is a much more credible opponent than Mabuza right now. So your example proves my point and disproves yours.

[Dave Rado]

For a Klitschko fan you are a really good poster. Very refreshing to hear logic, instead of Vagina, Coward, b.tch, vagina, red k, ignore, "Dont talk sh.t about Wlad"

You got your facts right, would green K if I could.

I'm just a boxing fan, not a fan of any particular fighter.

[UmarImranKhalil]

the IBF champion is Kaizer Mabuza and no one gives a damn about the Khan-Bradley winner fighting Mabuza, who is not a top 10 fighter. Even McCloskey is a much more credible opponent than Mabuza right now.

Did I miss something? Just a few days ago, I watched Zab Judah beat Mabuza in a fight for the IBF strap. Judah's ranked higher than McCloskey and he's a name, FWIW.


Anyway, for the record; regardless of where The Ring has either man rated, McCloskey's record doesn't boast a win near as good as Holt on Mabuza's.
**** a flashy rating (and The Ring's are hardly beyond reproach in recent times), McCloskey hasn't proven he's any more "credible" as of now than Mabuza. The latter's 7 losses can be damned, as many pros have taken a clutch of losses early in their careers before learning on the job and developing into very good fighters (Miguel Acosta being one recently active example). If anything, McCloskey is perceived generally to be a keep-busy for Khan, with the result a formality.


That's not saying Khan shouldn't be fighting McCloskey and should be fighting Zab or Mabuza now or at any point. Just dropping some truth.

[LeadUppercut]

You are confusing being the champion with being the best. The lineal champion IS always THE world champion, and provided that there is general agreement among boxing experts about who the lineal champion is, then that IS definitive. But the lineal champion is not always the best in the division, any more than the #1 ranked tennis player at any given time is necessarily the best tennis player. At present Caroline Wozniacki is the #1 ranked woman's tennis player, but she certainly isn't the best - either Williams sister would beat her nine times out of 10. But Wozniacki is still definitively the #1 ranked tennis player. And when Briggs beat Foreman, however controversially, he was definitively THE world Heavyweight champion, even though he wasn't the best. It didn't matter in his case, because his "reign" only lasted for one fight. Same with Boldomir.

To be considered definitively the best, you not only need to win the lineal title, but to defend it against the top contenders for a reasonably long period. Which was why Haye was never definitively the best Cruiserweight, even though he was the lineal champion. But he WAS definitively THE world Cruiserweight champion. And had he fought and beaten Adamek and Cunningham before moving up, he'd have become definitively the best as well. But he didn't, so he wasn't. But he was still definitively THE champion.

Not really, I think that only the best should be called " champion ".

I don't pay too much heed to the lineal title, the lineal champ is just the man who beat the man.

Taking the current ABC swap-meet system into account I am obviously being a little unrealistic, and I almost always rate lineage above an ABC title, but there are far too many glaring examples where the lineal champ is clearly not that best in the division, to rate lineage as definitive.

Lineage is a factor, a pointer, an indicator..... but nothing more.

Your point about the general consensus is correct, but often the general consensus is that the lineal champ is not the best in a particular division.

And good point about Wozniacki, that also applies to incumbent Champion's/Team's from most sporting codes, but the ranking system in tennis factors in activity, and body-of-work. In boxing it can come down to one punch. In theory, and if the Williams sisters had not played a full year, both could beat Wozniacki and she would still be ranked #1.

This is gold.....
" To be considered definitively the best, you not only need to win the lineal title, but to defend it against the top contenders for a reasonably long period "