When is a unified champion not a unified champion...?

[Matt W]

...when Sky are promoting a fight.

Haye-Klitschko is being promoted as a fight to finally crown a 'unified' champion, but Wlad is already a unified champ, holding 2 of the big 4 belts. So in reality it's a fight to crown a 'more unified until the WBA upgrades the winner to 'Super Champion' status the next day and crowns a new WBA champion' champion.

It may seem a picky point for such a great fight but this kind of rubbish is killing boxing's potential for truly historic achievements because such former matters of historical importance have lost any meaning.

And to continue the theme, David Haye never was 'Undisputed' Cruiserweight Champion so shouldn't be referred to as such.

Still, can't wait for Saturday & it's nothing to do with the baubles on offer!

[stujones]

...when Sky are promoting a fight.

Haye-Klitschko is being promoted as a fight to finally crown a 'unified' champion, but Wlad is already a unified champ, holding 2 of the big 4 belts. So in reality it's a fight to crown a 'more unified until the WBA upgrades the winner to 'Super Champion' status the next day and crowns a new WBA champion' champion.

It may seem a picky point for such a great fight but this kind of rubbish is killing boxing's potential for truly historic achievements because such former matters of historical importance have lost any meaning.

And to continue the theme, David Haye never was 'Undisputed' Cruiserweight Champion so shouldn't be referred to as such.

Still, can't wait for Saturday & it's nothing to do with the baubles on offer!

I would say it more of a point for this fight than Haye's cruiserweight claim. You would have to be pretty bias if you claimed anyone else was the man after Haye vs Maccarinelli.

However, there is a legitimate claim that this is actually a fight between the #2 and #3 Heavyweights in the world. Big Brother Klitchsko hasn't exactly been looking like shit of late and he actually never lost his ring belt in the ring (should never have been awarded it in the first place, but he did).

[crusader]

Since we are on the topic of semantics-----does the term "undisputed champ" no longer exclusively denote someone who holds every major title in a division?

[NazNaci1]

...when Sky are promoting a fight.

Haye-Klitschko is being promoted as a fight to finally crown a 'unified' champion, but Wlad is already a unified champ, holding 2 of the big 4 belts. So in reality it's a fight to crown a 'more unified until the WBA upgrades the winner to 'Super Champion' status the next day and crowns a new WBA champion' champion.

It may seem a picky point for such a great fight but this kind of rubbish is killing boxing's potential for truly historic achievements because such former matters of historical importance have lost any meaning.

And to continue the theme, David Haye never was 'Undisputed' Cruiserweight Champion so shouldn't be referred to as such.

Still, can't wait for Saturday & it's nothing to do with the baubles on offer!

A mute point but how can you say Wlad is the Undisputed Champ 'already', holding 2 of the 4 belts, the (IBO - does this one even count?) IBF amd WBO (3 if you count the Ring belt).

Yet then say Haye was never the Undisputed Cruiserweight Champ, when he held the WBA, WBC, WBO and the Ring Belts.

If Wlad is the Undipsuted Champ based on that logic, Haye was an even more legitimate Undisputed Champ, than Wlad, when he was a Cruiserweight.

[crusader]

...when Sky are promoting a fight.

Haye-Klitschko is being promoted as a fight to finally crown a 'unified' champion, but Wlad is already a unified champ, holding 2 of the big 4 belts. So in reality it's a fight to crown a 'more unified until the WBA upgrades the winner to 'Super Champion' status the next day and crowns a new WBA champion' champion.

It may seem a picky point for such a great fight but this kind of rubbish is killing boxing's potential for truly historic achievements because such former matters of historical importance have lost any meaning.

And to continue the theme, David Haye never was 'Undisputed' Cruiserweight Champion so shouldn't be referred to as such.

Still, can't wait for Saturday & it's nothing to do with the baubles on offer!

A mute point but how can you say Wlad is the Undisputed Champ 'already', holding 2 of the 4 belts, the (IBO - does this one even count?) IBF amd WBO (3 if you count the Ring belt).

Yet then say Haye was never the Undisputed Cruiserweight Champ, when he held the WBA, WBC, WBO and the Ring Belts.

If Wlad is the Undipsuted Champ based on that logic, Haye was an even more legitimate Undisputed Champ, than Wlad, when he was a Cruiserweight.

He said that Wlad is already a unified champ.

[NazNaci1]

Ah my bad, 'Unified' not 'Undisputed'.

Apologies...trying to work and post, as I normally do around this time and again another example of why I should not

[Matt W]

'Unified' / 'Undisputed' - the ease with which my point was misunderstood pretty much highlights a point I was trying to make. There is no real meaning to these terms now.

I agree that Haye was clearly the man at Cruiserweight but that doesn't mean he should be called undisputed when he wasn't, not if the term is to retain any real meaning (which in fairness it has already lost due to the shambolic way in which the sport is governed).

[bynino]

I always thought that you had to have all the belts, to unify a division? I would think the same for undisputed. Wouldn't you have to have all the top versions of the title, to also be "Undisputed"?

[Josh1111]

Since we are on the topic of semantics-----does the term "undisputed champ" no longer exclusively denote someone who holds every major title in a division?

If thats the case Lennox Lewis was never unified the division as he never held the WBO, only the WBC, WBA and the IBF

[freddydoesdallas]

What happened to the IBF title with Mormeck @ Cruiser, he lost to O'Neill Bell when 3 were on the line and then in the rematch only 2 were. If the IBF title was then lost outside the ring (which was/is rife) then Haye won the pair off Mormeck followed by the WBO as well, does this not give him a claim to be undisputed?

[earsjohn]

The concept of an Undisputed Champion, or fully Unified champion, is a relic of the past. With up to seven belts in each division, it has become almost impossible to recognise a single boxer as undisputed. As soon as Haye fights Klitschko, the winner is elevated to WBA Super Champion status and a new WBA Champion will be crowned.

Personally I tend only to recognise the highest ranking champion within an organisation (ie, Super Champ over nornal champ, normal champ over Interim Champ), but there are a number of recent cases whereby the lower status belt holder has come to be recognised as a genuine Champ - Dmitri Sartison, Julio Cesar Chavez Jnr, Austin Trout and Brandon Rios.

The winner of Haye v Wlad will be a more unified champ than currently exists. If Wlad wins he will be recognised as the undisputed champ, as he's not gonna fight big bro. If Haye wins, critics will refuse to call him an undisputed champ as he'll not have beaten Vitali.

[Britannian Stallion]

[quote="Matt W"] a fight to crown a 'more unified until the WBA upgrades the winner to 'Super Champion' status the next day and crowns a new WBA champion'

It would be hilariously if they actually billed it as that. Can you imagine the voice over on the preview