The fact of the matter is Cunningham beat a title holder to get his belt, which would put him in the classification of a titleist. Now I admit that his situation is quirky given that he would've been classified as paper champ had he won the first time instead of in a rematch. However, situations like this don't happen often. Again, one way to reestablish lineage is the divisions top two fighters to fight eachother. After Haye left, the lineage had been broken. At that point, Adamek and Cunningham were considered the top 2 guys in the division(forget for a minute that Cunningham was a titlest. Every beltholder is a titlest or paper champ when the lineage is broken. Just concentrate on Cunningham and Adamek being considered the top two fighters in the division). You're still getting caught up in conotations here. When you see the term "paper champ" you're thinking about someone who isn't a good fighter. I'm simply using it to indentify how someone aquired their title. Just because you're a paper champ or a titlest, or even a non titlest, doesn't mean that you're not a good fighter. So, if we accept that lineage can be reestablished by pitting the top two fighters against eachother, and if we accept that Adamek and Cunningham were the top two fighters at CW in a time where the lineage had been broken, then that would mean that the winner of that fight would have reestablished lineage. There is nothing that says a titlest, paper champ, or non titlest can't be involved in a fight to reestablish lineage.
No because israel KO'd larios, tere is the lineage!! Look at my post and you will see how i've explained it! Israel V. was the lineal champ before the defeat and never fought a paper champ.
I must say this is one of the few times I've been able to disagree with posters without the conversation resorting to cursing and name calling.
Forgetting whether paper champ is rbbish. To me it seems this case with cunningham really does provide a loop hole (so to speak) in your definitions. Albeit a rare case it can and has happened. My point really is how cunningham went from contender in fighting for the vacant belt and losing, then to paper champ by beating a paper champ whom he lost to. Then, from paper he made 1 defence against a contender in huck. So i wouldn't qualify him as a titleist at that point. But he then seems to justify a fight with Adamek for the lineal title, who had only beaten Bell, who lost his previous fight. So i wouldn't class either of them at the time as the best 2 fighting for the lineal title. Its sort of similar when klitschko fought ibragimov but they didnt get the lineal championship.
Ok then. It seems your problem isn't with my classification of a champion but rather with the notion Cunningham and Adamek were ranked 1 and 2. Here's what I have to say about that. Personally, I don't like the 1 vs. 2 method. I feel it's hard to determine who is number 1 and who is number 2. However, this is a totally different argument. For the sake of this argument, let's just assume that the 1 vs 2 method is sound and that the Ring Magazine's rankings were accurate. If we assume this, then Adamek would be the Cruiserweight champion as he and Cunningham were ranked 1 and 2 at the time of the fight.
I also don't like the 1 vs 2 method. IMO this is a good example of why it's flawed. Cunningham and Adamek would have been a lot of people's picks for one and two in the division at the time of their fight (and indeed would have been mine). But they were by no means clearly one and two - the division was too fragmented for that, too many people had not fought one another or enough common opponents.