Why does the WBA regular title not matter for anyone else but mattered for GGG?

[Citizen Koba]

Golovkin has defended the WBA's full world title 6 times; the record for defenses of a full world title at 160lbs currently stands with Bernard Hopkins' 20 defenses.

Regardless of how hard folks want to disregard the fact, for Golovkin's first 10 "title defenses", he was a secondary beltholder to Felix Sturm and Daniel Geale.

To hear folks like you tell it, Daniel Jacobs is 4 fights into his own title defense run, with his fifth title defense on the verge of going to purse bid. Hopefully Golovkin shows up.

That's fine, but can you be bothered starting a twitter campaign to tell the world that GGGs title record can't be compared to BHops because they're comparing different things? I can't.

It's the WBAs title they can count it how they like. I personally don't give it any credibility, but then you can say Hopkins record also can't be compared to Monzons. It is what it is.

EDIT. Not that it makes the slightest difference as to the credibility of Golovkin's title defense record but it's worth noting that according to the WBAs own rules the Super Champion status was introduced to be given to unified champions however, so Sturms elevation, when he held no other titles was in direct contravention of the WBAs own rules, and in fact it's widely accepted that Sturm asked for the elevation for the sole purpose of avoiding fighting his mandatory, GGG.

[Lester Tutor]

"My ass smells putrid. I think I should use toilet paper from now on." -Abel

[Randall Cunning]

That's fine, but can you be bothered starting a twitter campaign to tell the world that GGGs title record can't be compared to BHops because they're comparing different things? I can't.

It's the WBAs title they can count it how they like. I personally don't give it any credibility, but then you can say Hopkins record also can't be compared to Monzons. It is what it is.

EDIT. Not that it makes the slightest difference as to the credibility of Golovkin's title defense record but it's worth noting that according to the WBAs own rules the Super Champion status was introduced to be given to unified champions however, so Sturms elevation, when he held no other titles was in direct contravention of the WBAs own rules, and in fact it's widely accepted that Sturm asked for the elevation for the sole purpose of avoiding fighting 3his mandatory, GGG.

Sturm was the sole WBA middleweight champion. Sturm was elevated to Super Champion as he had defended the WBA Championship 5 times, same thing as Golovkin, same thing that will happen if Thurman defends his belt 2 more times.

[Citizen Koba]

Sturm was the sole WBA middleweight champion. Sturm was elevated to Super Champion as he had defended the WBA Championship 5 times, same thing as Golovkin, same thing that will happen if Thurman defends his belt 2 more times.

You are right as the rules stand, but the mystery deepens a little.

From the current WBA regs:

2. Super Belts

Similarly the Association will grant Super Belts to those champions
that make 5 or 10 (if it was the case) successful defenses of his title. These Super Belts will be named after those champions that have been able to defend their title 5 or 10 times.



However, in 2009 a clear statement was made:

EDIT: this statement was updated in 2009, I'm not sure of the original date of the release.

http://www.wbaboxing.com/wba-super-c...s#.WAUEQLWVtoA

DEFINITION

The SUPER WORLD CHAMPION CATEGORY OR UNDISPUTED WORLD CHAMPION was created for those World Champions who hold the title of two or more organizations recognized by the WBA, like the World Boxing Council (WBC), the International Boxing Federation (IBF) and the World Boxing Organization (WBO).

The creation of the category of SUPER WORLD CHAMPIONS or UNDISPUTED WORLD CHAMPIONS was born from a suggestion sent to us by Lennox Lewis, World Boxing Association former Heavyweight Champion, which we have considered convenient in order to give the Unified Champions a more flexible time to defend their titles as well as the challengers the chance to fight for the title.

Which makes no mention at all of the number of defences and in fact makes it quite clear that Super Champion status is for Unified Champs.

Perhaps it's merely coincidence that the 2009 rules were changed in time for Sturms elevation in mid 2010 though. Whether they're merely massively inconsistent or just plain corrupt it's clear that the WBA shouldn't be taken too seriously.

EDIT (again) yeah, This article from summer 2010 describes the 5 defense rule as 'a new addition'. Sturm was elevated a coupla months earlier on 23 March.

http://www.badlefthook.com/2010/6/22...lphabet-titles

[jmrf4435]

This GGG obsession some people have is getting scary. Do these anti GGG posters have jobs? its incredible.

GGG has wanted to unify the belts and the WBA is a belt, wtf is the problem???

[Scipio2009]

That's fine, but can you be bothered starting a twitter campaign to tell the world that GGGs title record can't be compared to BHops because they're comparing different things? I can't.

It's the WBAs title they can count it how they like. I personally don't give it any credibility, but then you can say Hopkins record also can't be compared to Monzons. It is what it is.

EDIT. Not that it makes the slightest difference as to the credibility of Golovkin's title defense record but it's worth noting that according to the WBAs own rules the Super Champion status was introduced to be given to unified champions however, so Sturms elevation, when he held no other titles was in direct contravention of the WBAs own rules, and in fact it's widely accepted that Sturm asked for the elevation for the sole purpose of avoiding fighting his mandatory, GGG.

The WBA helped Felix Sturm duck the fight, but even by your own distinction from the WBA's rules, Golovkin's belt didn't mean all that much before he got the full belt after Geale vacated.

The WBC handles things differently, but what's the difference between Golovkin's status (hearing what the WBA rules are for the situation) and the medal that the WBC had Marco Antonio Rubio where around his neck.

[Citizen Koba]

The WBA helped Felix Sturm duck the fight, but even by your own distinction from the WBA's rules, Golovkin's belt didn't mean all that much before he got the full belt after Geale vacated.

The WBC handles things differently, but what's the difference between Golovkin's status (hearing what the WBA rules are for the situation) and the medal that the WBC had Marco Antonio Rubio where around his neck.

Indeed. The WBA is a joke and the other orgs really aren't that much better. This is why all this arguing about the record is much to me like the proverbial argument about the Angels dancing on the head of pin. At the end of the day the WBA will call it whatever they choose to call it and the boxing pundits and fans of the future will be the ones to decide the relative merits of Hopkins and Golovkin's career based on who they fought rather than on some rather spurious 'record'.

If the 'record' was to have any credibility it would have to be reset each time an org changed it's regs or each time a new org was declared eligible, so what does it really mean anyway?

I mean, really. Did anyone even raise an eyebrow when Sturm came within one fight of matching Monzons 'legitimate' MW title defense record? Did anyone go - oh no, this must be stopped because people might think Sturm is a great as Monzon? No. The very idea is preposterous.

[Scipio2009]

Indeed. The WBA is a joke and the other orgs really aren't that much better. This is why all this arguing about the record is much to me like the proverbial argument about the Angels dancing on the head of pin. At the end of the day the WBA will call it whatever they choose to call it and the boxing pundits and fans of the future will be the ones to decide the relative merits of Hopkins and Golovkin's career based on who they fought rather than on some rather spurious 'record'.

If the 'record' was to have any credibility it would have to be reset each time an org changed it's regs or each time a new org was declared eligible, so what does it really mean anyway?

I mean, really. Did anyone even raise an eyebrow when Sturm came within one fight of matching Monzons 'legitimate' MW title defense record? Did anyone go - oh no, this must be stopped because people might think Sturm is a great as Monzon? No. The very idea is preposterous.

...Felix Sturm only made 12 defenses of the WBA middleweight title, so he never got close to the record (even Monzone only made 15 title defenses).

Sturm didn't need the extra gimmick, because he'd been adopted as a star in Germany, and folks were rallying to him for the simple fact that he was a world champion that they identified with. As long as he was in fights that they could sell to the German crowd, Sturm didn't have to bother with the silliness.

[Citizen Koba]

...Felix Sturm only made 12 defenses of the WBA middleweight title, so he never got close to the record (even Monzone only made 15 title defenses).

Sturm didn't need the extra gimmick, because he'd been adopted as a star in Germany, and folks were rallying to him for the simple fact that he was a world champion that they identified with. As long as he was in fights that they could sell to the German crowd, Sturm didn't have to bother with the silliness.

That's kind of what I'm getting at. A gimmick is all it is. The defense 'record' means nothing anyway, it's who was fought and we all know that Golovkins record falls short even of Hopkins' which is no great shakes itself. Kinda what I'm getting at is that it really doesn't matter. The WBA and the record books will go ahead and call GGG 'the longest reigning MW champ' if he wins a few more fights, yet everyone who knows boxing will know it means Jack.

Hence my very first comment - several posts ago. 'If you fancy starting a twitter campaign, go ahead', hell, start a letter writing campaign if you like, I'll even put my name to it, and that's a promise, but do you really care enough?