Has the uk had a world champion since joe calzaghe?

[orbtastic]

Is that not how undisputed works?

You're undisputed when there is nobody to dispute?

[Horse]

Is that not how undisputed works?

You're undisputed when there is nobody to dispute?

I believe only Hopkins and Taylor have ever held the WBC, WBA, IBF & WBO titles at the same time.

Just because someone holds a paper belt it doesn't mean there is a dispute about who the true champion is.

[loaded_gloves]

Nobody questioned Lennox Lewis's claim as the undisputed heavyweight champion when the WBA handed John Ruiz (Don King) the WBA belt on a platter because it was so openly corrupt.

And since when did the WBOllocks get a piece of the action? You never needed to hold the WBO belt to be undisputed, although Hopkins did end up holding it, that was because De La Hoya first needed a paper title to give himself yet another division he had been 'champion' in. He was the undisputed champion when he KOd Trinidad, the lack of WBO belt meant nothing.

For the record, you did used to hold all three belts to be undisputed, but the sanctioning bodies, specifically the WBA, have made that increasingly impossible since the year 2000, so the definition has changed. Hence why HBO continued to announce Lennox as the undisputed champ long after the WBA had fiddled him out of a belt.

[orbtastic]

So you changed the definition? Just so we're clear. If so, fine. Nothing further to be said.

The WBO belt is somewhat spurious and had murky beginnings, but then so did the IBF.

If someone disputes your claim i.e. they hold a belt at the same time you are claiming to be undisputed, then it's pretty clear cut.

The Lewis one is a bit of a specious argument, he DID hold all 3 but got stripped of one and vacated the other instead of taking care of his mandatories.

You can't have your cake and eat it - On the one hand you're saying Haye was undisputed because he held all but the IBF title (and he never held that belt), including the WBO...but on the other you're saying it's a meaningless belt.

[Horse]

So you changed the definition? Just so we're clear. If so, fine. Nothing further to be said.

The WBO belt is somewhat spurious and had murky beginnings, but then so did the IBF.

So does a fighter have to hold the WBC, WBA, IBF & WBO titles to be the undisputed champion in your opinion?

If someone disputes your claim i.e. they hold a belt at the same time you are claiming to be undisputed, then it's pretty clear cut.

No, it isn't. The IBO, WBF and WBU champions have a claim to be the true champion do they?

The Lewis one is a bit of a specious argument, he DID hold all 3 but got stripped of one and vacated the other instead of taking care of his mandatories.

It isn't a specious argument, it is a good argument. Was Lewis the undisputed heavyweight champion after he dropped the WBA title or not?

[orbtastic]

So was Haye undisputed because he held the WBO title? If he'd not fought Enzo would be have been considered undisputed or unified?

No, Lewis wasn't the undisputed heavyweight.

He was quite rightly considered the consensus number 1/best heavyweight in the world by most sane people.

He was also the "lineal" champ, for what that is worth but it's a massively, massively flawed concept.

Just because Michael Buffer stands there and says it on live TV, doesn't make it so. He says Budweiser is the undisputed king of beers, but then he would do, he's paid to do so.

I'm not really following your line of argument - Why bring even more spurious titles into the equation that nobody in their wildest dreams has even given any legitimacy to.

Whoever it is that's hung up on the WBA title - Were the following people a bigger/better challenge than Ruiz at the time he fought them:

Grant
Botha
Tua
Rahman
Tyson

You both seem to be struggling heavily with the concept of what disputed means. So I'll leave it there, can't be arsed with back and forth.

[Horse]

So was Haye undisputed because he held the WBO title? If he'd not fought Enzo would be have been considered undisputed or unified?

No, Lewis wasn't the undisputed heavyweight.

He was quite rightly considered the consensus number 1/best heavyweight in the world by most sane people.

He was also the "lineal" champ, for what that is worth but it's a massively, massively flawed concept.

Your idea of being an undisputed champion is a massively flawed concept, because there currently aren't any undisputed champions according to your criteria and there are not likely to be any in the near future.

I'm not really following your line of argument - Why bring even more spurious titles into the equation that nobody in their wildest dreams has even given any legitimacy to.

Why allow a weak WBC, WBA, IBF or WBO champion to get in the way of there being an undisputed champion and not an IBO, WBF or WBU champion?

You both seem to be struggling heavily with the concept of what disputed means. So I'll leave it there, can't be arsed with back and forth.

If you can't be arsed does that mean you have won the argument?

[loaded_gloves]

Whoever it is that's hung up on the WBA title - Were the following people a bigger/better challenge than Ruiz at the time he fought them:

Grant
Botha
Tua
Rahman
Tyson

Well this is very easy.

Grant - yes, much bigger and better challenge at the time. He had beaten his rival respected contenders. Ruiz hadn't beaten ANYONE and was the latest Don King goon. Grant was the big fight, widely considered the number 1 challenger, hence why people continued to recognise Lewis as undisputed.

Botha - a marking time fight, but yes, bigger name than Ruiz. Better? Debateable. Although he did better against Mike Tyson than John Ruiz could ever dream of.

Tua - yes and yes. Can you say '19 second KO'?

Rahman - marking time fight for Lewis as he awaited Tyson mega fight, Ruiz at this time had struggled past a 39 year old Holyfield.

Tyson - way bigger than Ruiz, also better than Ruiz. At this time Ruiz had been gifted a draw over Holyfield and kept diving to the floor holding his balls everytime an obese Kirk Johnson hit him in the belly.

'I' didn't change the definition of 'undisputed' Mr Sarcasm. Had you been following boxing at the time you would have observed that boxing and the media had changed the definition of undisputed, in reaction to the increasingly uncontrollable sanctioning criminals.

As for your flawed argument that the IBF also had spurious beginnings, I'll take Larry Holmes and Marvin Hagler over Francesco Damiani and Doug DeWitt. Thank you and good night.