Were Dariusz Michalczewski and Joe Calzaghe undisputed champions, or not?

[IMDAZED]

hill unified with henry maske then failed to unify with michelchewski if you dont think 2 portions of the title is enough to create a new lineage after spinks then surely 3/4 is enough just because the wbc is missing it dont always mean its essential

So you're saying Hill created a new lineage by beating Maske? I suppose that's one way to look at it.

[B.U.R.N.E.R]

how is zaveck a joke.

You ever seen him fight?

[BattlingNelson]

So David Haye was not undisputed at CW either, then?

Nope. He never got the IBF belt that Cunningham had.

[iron mike tyson]

So you're saying Hill created a new lineage by beating Maske? I suppose that's one way to look at it.

no i sed unifying half the division is often enough to create a new lineage and if thats not enough in your eyes then surely 3 out of 4 is enough
out of interest ne1 no the ring rankings around 96/97 time

[BattlingNelson]

So you're saying Hill created a new lineage by beating Maske? I suppose that's one way to look at it.

Yep. That's the way to look at it. Those 2 was the top rated and they fought for the linear title vacated by Michael Spinks some 10 years before.

[iron mike tyson]

Nope. He never got the IBF belt that Cunningham had.

but that ibf belt was a paper title after mormeck got stripped or was it bell but anyway by definition of to be the man you gotta beat the man haye was undistputed at cruiser plus he added a third title to hes claim been the man is not a birth right

[IMDAZED]

no i sed unifying half the division is often enough to create a new lineage and if thats not enough in your eyes then surely 3 out of 4 is enough
out of interest ne1 no the ring rankings around 96/97 time

There were no four belts back then. I think we're forgetting the times. The WBO was a nothing belt. He had the WBA and the IBF then dropped both for a belt that was the equivalent of the WBF (back then). But I actually think the "unification starting a new lineage" is not a bad idea at all. It would've been nice if he defended it against the consensus #1 contender in Del Valle though.

[Slick_Rick]

I read two pages of this

It goes to show you how confusing these belts are

lol yup

This thread makes my head hurt.

[iron mike tyson]

There were no four belts back then. I think we're forgetting the times. The WBO was a nothing belt. He had the WBA and the IBF then dropped both for a belt that was the equivalent of the WBF (back then). But I actually think the "unification starting a new lineage" is not a bad idea at all. It would've been nice if he defended it against the consensus #1 contender in Del Valle though.

i understand the wbo been very lightly regarded in them terms hell its still lightly regarded now in some circles but even by dismissing the wbo you still get 2 thirds of the division on 1 fighter its like owning 2/3s of a business but the person with only 1/3 gets the decisive vote in board meetings. the lineage does not always get passed over in fights does it so in them circumstances i do believe the fighter who steps up and wants to take the risks needed to be classified as the new lineal champ is as good as beating the man

[BattlingNelson]

but that ibf belt was a paper title after mormeck got stripped or was it bell but anyway by definition of to be the man you gotta beat the man haye was undistputed at cruiser plus he added a third title to hes claim been the man is not a birth right

At this day and age you have to have the WBA, WBC, IBF and WBO belts simultaneously to be called undisputed. These are the major alphabetbelts.

Cunningham had been champion for some time before Haye fought Mormeck as I recall.