Comments Thread For: David Haye: I Will Spectacularly Decapitate Klitschko

[Spray_resistant]

its been a longtime since wlad has been in trouble in a fight.haye does have the speed & power to hurt wlad(down 13times).hayes window of opportunity is in the first 3 rounds after that wlad will jab & grab & wear haye down...haye needs to jump on him fast or else it will be a long night or short night at that.haye needs to take a big risk jumping in aggressively like sanders did.i know wlad isnt the same fighter but he cant all of a sudden develope an iron chin like vitali so the chance will be there but only if haye takes the risk of getting inside aggressively which will leave him open to be countered by wlad...its a very intriguing fight imo

Exactly the way I envision it, Haye can't give Wlad time to adjust and make this fight comfortable and what he is used to but IDK if he is going to be willing to take the risk necessary to make it an interesting night.

[BrooklynBomber]

While Haye talks Wlad trains,.

[Boxing Scene]

Haye sure does come out with some great quotes!

i bet this fight will do over a mil PPV sales in the UK,

Haye knows how to sell a fight and it doesnt get bigger then this

Haye will become undisputed heavyweight champion of the world!

The winner of this fight isn't undisputed. He's unified. You better check with Vitali.

[BrooklynBomber]

The winner of this fight isn't undisputed. He's unified. You better check with Vitali.

Actually no, winner will be undisputed because he will have three out of four major belts.Undisputed status is based on simple mathematics rather recognition. Champion is unified if he has two belts out of four but since another fighter can potentially unify another two belts the champion can not be considered undisputed. if the champion has three belts then he is undisputed simply because no other fighter can get as many belts without beating the champion.

[Ravens Fan]

Actually no, winner will be undisputed because he will have three out of four major belts.Undisputed status is based on simple mathematics rather recognition. Champion is unified if he has two belts out of four but since another fighter can potentially unify another two belts the champion can not be considered undisputed. if the champion has three belts then he is undisputed simply because no other fighter can get as many belts without beating the champion.

Just wondering where do you get your information? Definition from online dictionary
undisputed world champion
n
(Individual Sports & Recreations / Boxing) Boxing a boxer who holds the World Boxing Association, the World Boxing Council, the World Boxing Organization, and the International Boxing Federation world championship titles simultaneously

[Weltschmerz]

Davey Hayefaker is getting more tedious by the day. Decapitate, WOW, did we hear that before. Produce more ****** shirts and repeat yourself. Thankfully it will only be a couple months more before this ****** gets shut the fook up.. Retire to Hollywood already, you're fake as hell

[BrooklynBomber]

Just wondering where do you get your information? Definition from online dictionary
undisputed world champion
n
(Individual Sports & Recreations / Boxing) Boxing a boxer who holds the World Boxing Association, the World Boxing Council, the World Boxing Organization, and the International Boxing Federation world championship titles simultaneously

Simple logic + understanding of boxing organizations. By that definition no fighter but Bernard Hopkins(correct me if I'm wrong but he was the only fighter to hold 4 belts simulteneously) was ever undisputed champion and Chris Byrd and John Ruiz are dis*****g the greatness of Lennox Lewis.
There are way too many organizations in order for a champion to be trully, really be considered the man, 3 our of 4 is enough because there is no other way to be as "belt" recognised but beating the three belt holder. The whole "undisputed" comes from the meaning that no other fighter have as much stake at being recognized as the Man as the person who holds the majority of belts.

[Ravens Fan]

Simple logic + understanding of boxing organizations. By that definition no fighter but Bernard Hopkins(correct me if I'm wrong but he was the only fighter to hold 4 belts simulteneously) was ever undisputed champion and Chris Byrd and John Ruiz are dis*****g the greatness of Lennox Lewis.
There are way too many organizations in order for a champion to be trully, really be considered the man, 3 our of 4 is enough because there is no other way to be as "belt" recognised but beating the three belt holder. The whole "undisputed" comes from the meaning that no other fighter have as much stake at being recognized as the Man as the person who holds the majority of belts.

So, what you are saying is that this is your personal definition, correct?

[Hitman932]

So, what you are saying is that this is your personal definition, correct?

What he is saying is that if you believe a champion must hold all 4 belts to be considered so we will probably never see another undisputed champion for the rest of our lives.

And in the off chance that someone wins all 4 belts, he will be undisputed for all of 3 days until one of the organizations strips him of their belt, in which case, by your definition, he would not longer be undisputed because he did not have the belt.

[Ravens Fan]

What he is saying is that if you believe a champion must hold all 4 belts to be considered so we will probably never see another undisputed champion for the rest of our lives.

And in the off chance that someone wins all 4 belts, he will be undisputed for all of 3 days until one of the organizations strips him of their belt, in which case, by your definition, he would not longer be undisputed because he did not have the belt.

By your statements Wlad should be the undisputed heavyweight champion. But how many people see him as the undisputed champion? I personally recognize him as the true heavyweight champion. However, I did not make the rules up and it really has nothing to do with my own opinion. And as ridiculous as it has become, and whether you like it or not, there are four major boxing organizations. And if one of them does not recognize someone as a champion then that creates a dispute. And they may be recognized by the large majority as champion but by the definition of the word they cannot be an undisputed champion. And your statement would lead one to believe that there have been multitudes of undisputed champions making defenses. And there have been a few but for the most part fighters have been stripped of belts for as long as there have there have been multiple titles. So there really is nothing new about it.