Are Haye/Calzaghe/Pavlik undisputed champions?

In anybody with a brains mind, not at all.

Holmes was the champion, he also happened to have beat Berbick, Spinks beat Holmes.

Berbick wins the belt via telephone, never defends his fradulent belt, and then loses to Tyson in his first fight.

People may have thought tyson was better, but nobody with a brain thought he was THE champion.

 

I agree :yep

 

undisputed means to hold all three titles. None of the mentioned fighters does therefore none is undisputed. Simple.

 

what makes one organisation better than another though? calzaghe was wbo for ten years - the belt held in least highest esteem - he was easily the best fighter in his division - and still is. the more respective belts and their champions didnt do so well against him.

who's the man in lww - Ricky Hatton. WW - PBF. MW - Pavlik. SMW - Calzaghe - no contest. CW - Haye no contest.

 

In my mind Pavlik and Haye are. The reason that they dont have all three belts is bullsh*t. Cazlaghe on the other hand wouldnt fight Bute who was the number contender for the IBF, opting to fight the dangerous Manfedo instead. Little is said about that, not even the Bute fans seem to call Cazalghe on that one.

 

But Pavlik and Haye should have. And Cazalghe has owned all three belts but chose to give up the the IBF where as Taylor was stripped of the IBF before his fight with Pavlik for not fighting abraham when he had to rematch hopkins. As was Bell for having to rematch Mormeck.

Haye and Pavlik dont have the belts because the fighters that held all three before them were stripped due to rematch clauses where as Cazalghe OPTED not to fight Bute.

 

:think You bring up a very interesting point...

 

Bell fought Mormeck 15 months after fighting him the first time, and 11 months after being stripped. So it's not like he chose to fight Mormeck instead of Cunningham and got stripped as a result. He chose to fight no one instead of fighting Cunningham. Are seriously going to tell me Bell was justified in fighting nobody instead of his mando?

 

This is pretty much all incorrect. Why do some people think it's a good idea to just make **** up?

 

How the hell are you an undisputed champion when there is another fighter in your division who people think is better and who also has two championship belts?

 

What the fuk are you talking about??? Taylor was stripped of the IBF title for not fighting Abraham, he didnt fight Abraham becasue he owed Hopkins a rematch. Haye doesnt have all three belts because Bell Owed Mormeck a rematch, couple that with an injury he could defend vs Steve Cunningham. Cazlaghe doesnt have all three belts because he opted to fight Medfredo instead of Bute. Whats made up about that??

 

Universally recognized would be better language......obviously it's disputed...even fought over

 

I agree with those who say Pavlik needs to beat Abraham. If there was ever a fighter who was born, I mean absolutley ****ing bred and born, to get pavlikated it's Arthur Abraham. Stylistically Pavlik is Arthur's worst nightmare come true. However, there are enough people who think the fight needs to happen, and even enough people who think AA would win, that Pavlik cannot be considered Undisputed until he sends Arthur into retirement.

Boo