Multiple titles

[kafkod]

Graham Houston, Boxing Monthly editor:

What on earth is a “franchise champion”?

As the WBC explains it, a franchise champion shall enjoy special status. Basically, a franchise champion is an elite-level champion. As I understand it, the franchise champion basically will not be required to make those annoying mandatory defences.

If the franchise champion holds another sanctioning body title – the WBA title, say – and chooses to defend that title, then the franchise champion will still “proudly present” the WBC.

A franchise champion is not the WBC champion as such, however. Jermall Charlo was named WBC middleweight champion when Canelo was “elevated” to the status franchise champion. Previously, Charlo had been the WBC’s interim champion. Now Canelo is freed from the obligation of defending against Charlo and able to look at other options.

So, what if Canelo loses in a middleweight title fight? The opponent would automatically become franchise champion, right? Actually, no. As the WBC explains it, if the franchise loses, the winner will receive the Diamond belt and “may be considered as mandatory contender of the division”.

That means that if a fighter beats the “champion”, he doesn’t actually become champion? That’s right. In the WBC’s words, “this [franchise] designation is not transferable”. So, if a boxer is named franchise champion, he or she can’t actually lose the title but remains champion for life, to be designated “WBC emeritus champion” upon retirement.
Why did the WBC introduce a franchise champion? An unkind soul might jump to the conclusion that it’s to keep Canelo, the biggest attraction in boxing, on side. […]

A sane soul don’t care a sh *t abot the bogus boxing orgs’ belts and their parasitizing on sanction fees. There are belts out there to win with no other cost than true sporting principles (The Ring belts, TNBR belts) …

[…] you could say that all the WBC is doing with its “franchise” title is what the WBA initiated with its “super champion” designation. But what if the IBF and WBO follow suit? It’s like a slow descent into madness.

The franchise title can't be won by defeating the champion, we know that much. But the WBC didn't explain what would happen if the franchise champion lost. So would he keep his title, or would it simply disappear?

Maybe they want to leave that open so they can literally make the rules up as they go along.

[kafkod]

The UK quality magazine Boxing Monthly has existed for 30 years.
In a comment to its world ratings, it used to wrote BM ‘s world ratings recognise the world champions with the WBC, WBA, IBF and WBO only.
(Which I a few years ago wrote to the staff and criticized it for – there are 17 weight classes. How can you recognize 60+ world champions?)

Recently, in 2019, BM comments their world ratings as follows: We no longer list championship designations in the world ratings. It is now possible, with the WBC introduction of a ‘franchise champion’, to have as many as six world champions in one weight division from the four major sanctioning bodies. We feel saturation point has been reached.

Finally, BM has reacted to the ******ity. Credit to the mag.

Boxing as of today, has a very few world champions. But a lot of alphabet champions. I wish every serious boxing reporter would refer the titles to what they are – alphabet titles.

If the best don’t clash, you can’t have a world champion!

The alphabet orgs have played games with this sport for way too long. Boxing journalists, if they want to be respected for their profession, should know better than to act as the orgs’ marionettes.

IMO, what BM should have done is carry on listing the WBA, WBO and IBF championship designations in their rankings, and leave out the WBC.

[QueensburyRules]

It would be nice if by say, 2030, that all this crap was gone, replaced by 8 world champions instead and folks could say, "Remember when we had all those ridiculous belts?"

Don't know if it will happen, though.

- -Remember when we had 8 divisions and some very good, even great fighters were frozen out for long periods?

Of course not. Human memory most esp as applied to boxing is as reliable as a $2 Rolex.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

- -Remember when we had 8 divisions and some very good, even great fighters were frozen out for long periods?

Of course not. Human memory most esp as applied to boxing is as reliable as a $2 Rolex.

Two titles per eight divisions wouldn't be terrible but the way it is now? You got guys holding titles who should never have been anywhere near a belt. Four titles per seventeen divisions? That is nothing but ridiculous.

[QueensburyRules]

- -Always been a proliferation of titles, but yeah, magnified by doubling wt div and titles.

Had black and white title claimants, often disputed and state and country titles and so on. That's the history of a fractured sport, so you gonna walk back history?

[Marchegiano]

1 Regular champion
2 Interim champion
3 Super champion
4 Emeritus champion
5 Silver champion
6 Gold Champion
7 Mayan champion
8 Franchise champion

Goddamn son! **** me, I have got to catch up on recent unterbelt history.

Is the Diamond belt a defendable title or just a one-off award like the Money and Eternal?

WBC are some silly ol' boys.

Y'all seen this **** in the regionals too? For example, the WBC International HW title is a pretty well recognized regional title, they've added a silver there too. There is a WBC Int. Silver title now....wtf.

Sooo many GD belts.

[kafkod]

Goddamn son! **** me, I have got to catch up on recent unterbelt history.

Is the Diamond belt a defendable title or just a one-off award like the Money and Eternal?

WBC are some silly ol' boys.

Y'all seen this **** in the regionals too? For example, the WBC International HW title is a pretty well recognized regional title, they've added a silver there too. There is a WBC Int. Silver title now....wtf.

Sooo many GD belts.

Like the franchise title, diamond titles have no mandatory obligations.

But unlike the franchise title, the diamond title is defendable and can be won and lost in the ring.

[Marchegiano]

Like the franchise title, diamond titles have no mandatory obligations.

But unlike the franchise title, the diamond title is defendable and can be won and lost in the ring.

No ****? I had them backward to be honest. Thanks bud.

[Ben Bolt]

IMO, what BM should have done is carry on listing the WBA, WBO and IBF championship designations in their rankings, and leave out the WBC.

- -Remember when we had 8 divisions and some very good, even great fighters were frozen out for long periods?

Well, I guess I’m too old schooled to understand today’s situation.

I got involved in boxing in the 1970s, when there was very clear who was the rightful world champ in each weight class (the boxing orgs didn’t have much power back then, and to me, it can only be one world champ at the time, no matter sport), and when boxing still had its unique history of lineal champions. Today, that history is ruined, and why I lost a lot of interest to the sport – but of more importance, pro boxing has lost the dignity it once had.

For long, The Ring – inventor of sport rankings – kept the sport in order, but The Ring is also to blame for today’s turmoil (The Ring scandal 1977).
I just wish, that when The Ring tried to set things right again, that Bert Sugar had won his war against the orgs. He didn’t, and that is why we are where we are today – 60-70 “world” champions, and where the orgs and TV/internet contracts deny a lot of fights that would have been real world title fights.

Today, I can see young fighters getting overwhelmed with joy from winning any of the orgs’ mayonnaise belts.
They have trained hard and sacrificed a lot to get their rewards. Winning a belt (whether it’s sheet metal, silver or diamond) seems to make these youngsters happy and motivate them in their careers, so perhaps it’s a good thing. Being a boxer is tough at it is.
Instead of me moaning, I should turn my interest to other sports. After all, there are plenty to choose from.

[QueensburyRules]

- -Lost interest in other sports ages ago.

Boxing is the most historical pro sport and needs better documentation than the current media can muster.

Graham is one of the few respected ones and as an ol'man doing a heroes work in saving a modern Brit institution.

And that lineal nonsense is just that.

As to knowing whose champ, Sal Sanchez WBC and Pedroza WBA in the same era, so which one is it?