Which belt is more relevant? WBO World Belt or WBA World Belt (regular)

Thurman who doesn't have the Super belt. Don't you consider him a World Champion (there is no Super Champion in his division)? Thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_world_boxing_champions Thurman's situation is different, as he's simply the WBA's top champion, regardless of what his belt is called.

WBA belt because Sturm ducked GGG for yrs.

You know its a scam as the WBA frequently crown WBA Super champions who aren't unified. Examples - Floyd at 154, Frampton, Rigondeaux, Donaire at 130 etc. Theres plenty more examples In fact, its funny when you have unified WBA regular champions - Froch was 'unified' WBA regular and IBF, Canelo was 'unified' WBA regular and WBC. Its beyond a joke Yes indeed. I just thought it might be useful for the TS to know the WBAs 'official' stance on it. Sturm was the first example that occurred to me, but yeah, there's many egregious cases of their total disregard for the own regulations.

None of the belts mean anything... It's the fighters that hold them that bring credibility.. Yes, and same for the imaginary lineal title, and other worthless accolades including WBC Diamond, RING championship, Fighter of the Decade etc

Just to clarify the officially stated purpose of the WBA 'Super' title is for WBA world champions who are also champions for one the other orgs. ie. It's a belt for unified champs. The reason, they say, is to allow for less regular defences in acknowledgement of the responsibilities a unified champ has to defend his non-WBA titles. Apparently it was instigated at the suggestion of Lennox Lewis. Myself, I think it's a crock and basically an excuse for more sanctioning fees, but I can see the logic behind it. You know its a scam as the WBA frequently crown WBA Super champions who aren't unified. Examples - Floyd at 154, Frampton, Rigondeaux, Donaire at 130 etc. Theres plenty more examples In fact, its funny when you have unified WBA regular champions - Froch was 'unified' WBA regular and IBF, Canelo was 'unified' WBA regular and WBC. Its beyond a joke

None of the belts mean anything... It's the fighters that hold them that bring credibility..

So my takeaway of this thread is: The equivalent of WBC, IBF and WBO Champion is the WBA Super Champion. Just to clarify the officially stated purpose of the WBA 'Super' title is for WBA world champions who are also champions for one the other orgs. ie. It's a belt for unified champs. The reason, they say, is to allow for less regular defences in acknowledgement of the responsibilities a unified champ has to defend his non-WBA titles. Apparently it was instigated at the suggestion of Lennox Lewis. Myself, I think it's a crock and basically an excuse for more sanctioning fees, but I can see the logic behind it.

So my takeaway of this thread is: The equivalent of WBC, IBF and WBO Champion is the WBA Super Champion. The equivalent is the WBA belt. If there are two 'champions' then only the super champion is recognised

The WBA title id say is no less a title or more than the IBF WBO or WBC. The wba regular is certainly a lesser title than the wbo world title, yet the confusing part now, is their even a super title around now the unified champ has been stripped for drug use. If the super title is now out of the picture the regular title is on equal parity as the wbo in my opinion. The only belt I hold in low regard now is the IBO but I can understand why some would feel the major three titles are more prestigious than the wbo.

Yes he is, under those cirumstances. But the WBA's system is screwed up and pretty confusing especially when the interim champions are added into the mix. Look at MW for example. they have a super, regular, and interim champ. So is the interim champ an interim for Golovkin or Jacobs? It's just unnecessary. So my takeaway of this thread is: The equivalent of WBC, IBF and WBO Champion is the WBA Super Champion.

Thurman who doesn't have the Super belt. Don't you consider him a World Champion (there is no Super Champion in his division)? Thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_world_boxing_champions Yes he is, under those cirumstances. But the WBA's system is screwed up and pretty confusing especially when the interim champions are added into the mix. Look at MW for example. they have a super, regular, and interim champ. So is the interim champ an interim for Golovkin or Jacobs? It's just unnecessary.

WBA regular isn't relevant at all. It's basically a "world" title belt for the #1 Contender/mandatory challenger. Thurman who doesn't have the Super belt. Don't you consider him a World Champion (there is no Super Champion in his division)? Thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_world_boxing_champions

WBA regular isn't relevant at all. It's basically a "world" title belt for the #1 Contender/mandatory challenger.

Depends on what shade of color your skin is....