Banks is actually a good boxer. He just got hit by a huge right hand, I am sure he will come back.
I know the Brit fans are arguing over this because of the Haye case and letting too much emotions in. I admit that the rule is little bit unfair...
Basically you are saying that you do not recognize the ABC titles. I understand your point but there are several problems which follow. Haye...
Argreed. Holding the 3 major belts (IBF-WBA-WBC) make you the undisputed champ.That is also my opinion. Tyson did it, Holyfield did it and Haye...
Well, you can beat the man and not become champion at all if the man never had a belt. How can you become undisputed champion? Take for example...
Generally: If you win the IBF belt champ, your are "IBF" world champ If you win the WBC belt, you are "WBC" world champ If you win the WBA...
Yes, that is correct. I see that finally we agreed on this issue. The belts meant more back a time ago and that is where the notion undisputed...
Yes, absolutely correct. The champ would be the "Undisputed" champ (the guy who has the ABC world titles) against the "linear" champ (the guy...
The concept was indeed more apprioate in the past. ALL BELTS meant UNDISPUTED. Like Tyson did and Holyfield (IBF-WBA-WBC). The first WBO...
Well, I started the thread because Haye's fans always referred to Haye as the "undisputed champ". To me, Holyfield was the only "undisputed"...
That logic applies to "linear" champion. Like Foerman was when he fought Briggs. Briggs beat him to become linear champ. The concept of...
I pretty much agree with you. It is just technical and the notion "undisputed* was more appropriate to previous generations which also explains...
Finally, you got it right. Then you become "linear champ" even if you vacate all ABC belts. T Agreed again, it is more difficult to become...
I guess you are just too damned limited, so go visit another thread which may suit your intelligence more!!! MAJOR BODIES, does the ring a bell?...
