Can We just all agree to ignore Frenchise champion thing?

I thought it was one of the stupidest bunch of BS I ever heard of and I have not changed my mind.

Trash made up belt to collect sanctioning fees. There are already to many sanctioning bodies and multiple champs in one weight by the same sanctioning body. The diamond belt is another trashy example that does not signify anything.

What I would like to know is whether a WBC champion has the right to turn down an upgrade to franchise champ and refuse to give up his title to the No1 contender.

I suppose there's also no objective undisputed champions anymore in those weight divisions - we have to base it on who beat who (or didn't fight who) and keep track ourselves! Holding all the belts isn't really enough now.

Franchise champ becomes regular champ (and remains franchise champ)- iho I could be wrong. lol Franchise champ remains Franchise champ. Regular belt goes vacant. If the regular champ wins then no change. Franchise champ remains Franchise champ. Regular champ remains Regular champ. Presumably Franchise champ could simply demand a rematch given their Franchise status. If a non-belt holder beats a Franchise champ they win a Diamond belt and become mandatory for the Regular belt. So Loma and Canelo can never win another WBC belt. Because they've already got one for life. But they can fight any champ at any weight. And they can create mandatories by losing to challengers who don't have belts. I think.

If They want to pay their sanctioning fees for that stupid thing, go ahead, but I think healthiest thing on our end as fans is just ignoring it. So Canelo and Lomachenko just vacated their WBC belt to avoid mandatories. Simple. - -They were promoted out of the belts for a first time honorific with expanded rights to make the best fights. Simples!

Franchise champ becomes regular champ (and remains franchise champ)- iho I could be wrong. lol That's funny, the 'Franchise' champ has to win his old belt that he never lost :lol1: . Only in boxing.

My question is, if the regular world WBC champion fights the 'Franchise' champion, and the regular loses to the 'Franchise' what happens to the regular WBC title? Franchise champ becomes regular champ (and remains franchise champ)- iho I could be wrong. lol

all these sanctioning bodies, and fees, and suprrrreme burrito taco bell champs.. i do not get it.. as i posted before.. i said.. we need a big big company like google or amazon to use their big bank to make big fights, and put the best to the best.. we got too many belts.. jhonny has a unified JKC japanese kennel club champ.. he might not be the best global chihuahua champ.. but in his mind, and my mind.. he is the man to beat..

I tbought we already were? Its like Fury and his fake lineal title

My question is, if the regular world WBC champion fights the 'Franchise' champion, and the regular loses to the 'Franchise' what happens to the regular WBC title?

Yes. Canelo is no longer WBC middleweight champion to me. And in my book Lomachenko will not unify all the belts at 135 unless he fights Devin Haney.

Agreed. Though I don't lend any real credence to the WBC belt either. Both fighters are pretty clearly champions, but both have ducked mandatories.