Franchise + Super

[James Hunt]

135 Franchise has been passed on so another fighter can win it. So it's the major belt as also said by WBC President.

If people do not recognise Kambisos as undisputed. And you're all mad at the franchise. I'm sure most of you here diss the wba regular and recognise WBA Super. Shouldn't everyone then acknowledge WBA regular which is the real belt, and not acknowledge the Super which was the made up belt and fighters elevated to. Just as franchise is. Only diff is Franchise is not in every division which it will be eventually. WBA super did not exist at every division. Wlad was elevated to the so called super after he beat Haye for the WBA

Everyone mad at the franchise but you all acknowledge the Super which was a new thing just over a decade ago.

Super and Franchise should both be scrapped. Or acknowledge them both as the major title.

Franchise designation (not a title!!; Kambo):
- NOT RECOGNIZED by other 3 major Orgs. and therefore CAN'T be UNIFIED
- CAN become mando to WBC champ

WBC title (Haney)
- IS RECOGNIZED by other 3 major Orgs. and therefore CAN be UNIFIED
- CAN'T become mando to WBC Franchise champ

WBA Super:
- IS RECOGNIZED by other 3 major Orgs. and therefore CAN be UNIFIED
- CAN'T become mando to WBA Regular

WBA Regular:
- NOT RECOGNIZED by other 3 major Orgs. and therefore CAN'T be UNIFIED unless there is NO Super champ
- CAN become mando to WBA Super

WBCFranchise = Regular
WBC Champ = Super

If u don't believe it, check their rankings, and also look who they recognize as champion from the other 3 Orgs.

[Marchegiano]

Who cares if it's not recognized by the others? Are the others the law?

The IBF never used to be recognized at all. WBO either.

What is the actual difference between the WBA Super and the WBC Franchise?

If the WBC themselves are saying that that is there main title then what exactly is the argument here?

I mean, not really no. I don't much care for anything that isn't the WBC and WBA to be honest for the exact reasons you mentioned. But, if people are going to care about their belts and what is and is not undisputed then it most certainly does matter.

When the IBF was not recognized no one needed an IBF title to be an undisputed champion.

When the WBO was unrecognized there were quite a few undisputed champions who did not hold a WBO title.

I don't think I need to point out how that relates but just in case:

What makes the IBF and WBO "major" or "official" bodies in the first place is the recognition of the IBF and WBO by the WBC and WBA.

What makes titles "major" or "official" titles is also this cross recognition.

All the bodies have interims, none of the bodies recognize anyone else's interims. Ergo, an interim champion is never a disputant to an undisputed champion.

The WBA made a super and son'd their regular. No body but the WBA recognizes a WBA Regular champion. No WBA-R champion is a disputant.

It's literally the check and balance and all that, that makes undisputed. No one needs the IBO and you know that. No one needs the franchise either. It literally does not make you the man every official body recognizes as the sole official champion of the division at least at lightweight. Because all the bodies George is the champion of still recognize Haney for some reason.


If undisputed actually matters to you then you shouldn't be so hasty to crown George. If it doesn't then it really shouldn't matter that he doesn't qualify because you're well aware of their bureaucracy. I mean, does it surprise you to find the man who beat the man who beat the man is not solely recognized as the man because of multi-belt ****ery? I just brought more detail to it but that's still the case.

[IronDanHamza]

Haney is a legit champ imo because he was given a vacated belt. Tank isn’t really a champion.

Tank's more a champion than Haney, if anything.

He won the regular belt off the regular champion whilst the actual champion Josh Taylor had the Super.

Pretty much the same situation at 135 except Haney didn't even win his fake title

[IronDanHamza]

I mean, not really no. I don't much care for anything that isn't the WBC and WBA to be honest for the exact reasons you mentioned. But, if people are going to care about their belts and what is and is not undisputed then it most certainly does matter.

When the IBF was not recognized no one needed an IBF title to be an undisputed champion.

When the WBO was unrecognized there were quite a few undisputed champions who did not hold a WBO title.

I don't think I need to point out how that relates but just in case:

What makes the IBF and WBO "major" or "official" bodies in the first place is the recognition of the IBF and WBO by the WBC and WBA.

What makes titles "major" or "official" titles is also this cross recognition.

All the bodies have interims, none of the bodies recognize anyone else's interims. Ergo, an interim champion is never a disputant to an undisputed champion.

The WBA made a super and son'd their regular. No body but the WBA recognizes a WBA Regular champion. No WBA-R champion is a disputant.

It's literally the check and balance and all that, that makes undisputed. No one needs the IBO and you know that. No one needs the franchise either. It literally does not make you the man every official body recognizes as the sole official champion of the division at least at lightweight. Because all the bodies George is the champion of still recognize Haney for some reason.


If undisputed actually matters to you then you shouldn't be so hasty to crown George. If it doesn't then it really shouldn't matter that he doesn't qualify because you're well aware of their bureaucracy. I mean, does it surprise you to find the man who beat the man who beat the man is not solely recognized as the man because of multi-belt ****ery? I just brought more detail to it but that's still the case.

But the WBA "regular" was the WBA before the "Super" was made.

Exactly the same as the WBC now.

If Lomachenko was the WBC Champion, and he was "upgraded" to Franchise, which the WBC say is their highest belt, and then lost it to Teo, who lost it to Kambsos.

Surely it's very clear who the actual champion is?????????

[IronDanHamza]

Only for people too lazy to read the rules or just plain ******.

Franchise designation (not a title!!; Kambo):
- NOT RECOGNIZED by other 3 major Orgs. and therefore CAN'T be UNIFIED
- CAN become mando to WBC champ

WBC title (Haney)
- IS RECOGNIZED by other 3 major Orgs. and therefore CAN be UNIFIED
- CAN'T become mando to WBC Franchise champ

WBA Super:
- IS RECOGNIZED by other 3 major Orgs. and therefore CAN be UNIFIED
- CAN'T become mando to WBA Regular

WBA Regular:
- NOT RECOGNIZED by other 3 major Orgs. and therefore CAN'T be UNIFIED unless there is NO Super champ
- CAN become mando to WBA Super

The ruth is exactly the opposite.
WBCFranchise = Regular
WBC Champ = Super
If u don't believe it, check their rankings.
If it sounds better doesn't mean it really is.

It's not the oppsite.

The Super WBA was brought in to so the champion didn't have to face madatories. That's literally the exact same as the WBC Franchise. The words "Super" and "Franchise" are interchangeable.

If the WBC themselves say that Franchise as the highest belt and their champion at 135 is Kambosos then what does it matter what the other organizations recognise? It's totally irrelevant.

All that matters is who has the top belt, Kambosos has all of them.

[QueensburyRules]

- - Hard to believe we got growed boys who follow boxing who don't understand Franchise means Canelo and Loma can jump divisions at will to make the best fights.

Supers are being phased out and they couldn't do that anyway.

What grade in what school U boys classmates?

[James Hunt]

It's not the oppsite.

The Super WBA was brought in to so the champion didn't have to face madatories. That's literally the exact same as the WBC Franchise. The words "Super" and "Franchise" are interchangeable.

If the WBC themselves say that Franchise as the highest belt and their champion at 135 is Kambosos then what does it matter what the other organizations recognise? It's totally irrelevant.

All that matters is who has the top belt, Kambosos has all of them.

Just ask yourself, how old you are and what's you're education, and you'll get all the answers.
Hopeless case.

[charliepaerker]

To all the ret@rds saying the Franchise belt is the real title then why doesn't the WBC have a Franchise champion in every division?

[Toffee]

Who cares if it's not recognized by the others? Are the others the law?

The IBF never used to be recognized at all. WBO either.

What is the actual difference between the WBA Super and the WBC Franchise?

If the WBC themselves are saying that that is there main title then what exactly is the argument here?

I think the argument is that we're talking about an org's main title.

A main title comes with mandatory obligations and is won and lost in the ring whenever someone is representing that org.

The franchise champion didn't come about like that. Loma was champion and was 'elevated' to Franchise and did not have to face a mandatory.

The Franchise belt was never intended to be won and lost in the ring. In fact, Lopez and then Kambosos had to request it be made available for their fights. That's not how a championship belt is supposed to work.

Basically, the WBC ballsed up. They've now got two champions with legitimate claims in a situation that they themselves invented. They've broken both of these belts. One was never won in the ring, and the other was not subject to any of the requirements of a championship title.

To me, it's perfectly legitimate to not call Kambosos Undisputed. There's dispute - that Franchise belt isn't legitimate. To that end nor is their Regular belt.

They are in the exceptionally dumb territory of needing to unify their own belts to give their champion legitimacy in the weight class.

Just think if the WBO decided to award Joshua a new belt for his service to them. Then claimed that one was the higher honour. You can't do it with any legitimacy - you'd need the titlists to fight each other.

[Toffee]

But the WBA "regular" was the WBA before the "Super" was made.

Exactly the same as the WBC now.

If Lomachenko was the WBC Champion, and he was "upgraded" to Franchise, which the WBC say is their highest belt, and then lost it to Teo, who lost it to Kambsos.

Surely it's very clear who the actual champion is?????????

But it didn't happen in that order. If they'd upgraded him to 'Franchise' and said that's the name of the main belt in the weight class won and lost in the ring, with mandatories... then we wouldn't have a problem.

But they didn't. They made it a non specific, non mandatory, non transferable bestowed honour. It's hard to then turn back time to a stage 3 champions ago and say that this suddenly applies to the past and therefore retrospectively covers the full lineage of that title.

What if Loma had lost an upset to a keep warm opponent? The belt wouldn't have transferred in that case and the lineage would be completely broken.