Franchise + Super

[IronDanHamza]

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.

It's up to the organizations isn't it. Right or wrong, their belts are what they say they are.

If today they say the Franchise title is their main title then that's what it is. We can't argue with that.

I don't disagree that the whole original idea of the franchise title was ridiculous but what I find more ridiculous is acting like the guy who was actually the champion was no longer the champion and some guy who got given a title for no reason is the real champion.

[IronDanHamza]

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?

You mean ret@ards like the WBC themselves?

He's made it clear, the divisons where there's a franchise champion, they are their champion at the weight class.

[Marchegiano]

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?????????

I covered the reg and super. Apologies it didn't land right.

No WBA regular are on any rating system as the WBA champion instead of a WBA super.

The IBF, WBO, and WBC each recognize one champion from the WBA on their ratings, none of those singular representation are, or ever have been, a WBA Regular champion if there is a WBA Super champion in the division. You will see WBA regulars included when there is no super. I don't know if there's a good example of a regular on an IBF board or some such because I think every division currently has a Super champion, but, it is those super champions you'll see on the IBF, WBO, and WBC boards. If there is a super champion he is the sole representative of the WBA on non-WBA ratings.

Conversely

You only need the case-in-point to find a franchise champion being excluded by the other bodies as the WBC champion on their boards. Haney is who all of the other 3 list.

There is no analog to this in WBA belts and never has been. There was never once any rating board that ever rated a regular instead of the super. There are only rating boards that recognize the regular due to lack of a super.

There is a situation where the boards refuse to recognize a franchise over a normal. It's the normal getting the slot which is the official dispute for undisputed.

The rest is mostly guessing


The big difference is their roll outs. The WBC-F is still, by paperwork and official WBC documents, nontransferable. That's probably why the IBF, WBA, and WBO refuse to recognize it when there is a WBC-normal to opt for. The WBA was very clear, the Super transfers and is a higher title than the regular. never changed their tune, never acted one way while their rules read the opposite, it's easier to adopt.

I doubt the IBF, WBO, and WBA want to recognize a belt only the WBC can control and can make up rules for as they go. Clear defined mandos and transfers are probably the hold up, imo. Because right now they could crown George and everyone but the WBC would need a reason to strip him. It puts them stuck on a low profile winner while the WBC has the ability to just from low profile winners to high profile money makers regardless of in ring ability. It's their award for representing the WBC and at the moment they can do whatever they want with it but force the other 3 to go along. If the other 3 go along, the WBC can do whatever they want indefinitely.

[Boxing 112]

I am against any “title” that distorts what I know to be true.

Loma’s “franchise “ title is as fake to me as Tank’s WBA LW “regular “ title is. These are “titles ” both guys powerful promoters were able to negotiate with the sanctioning bodies.

Kambosis is the WBA, IBF and WBO ( which I don’t even really consider as a sanctioning body) champion at 135. Haney, regardless of the fact he was given the belt and didn’t get the chance to win in the ring, is the WBC champion at 135.

Kambosis is the champ, Haney is the #1 contender.

Why is lomas franchise fake and the wbc regular fake? The regular wba is the original. The super was made later within the last 15 years yet you came to accept that as a legit title

[The Big Dunn]

Why is lomas franchise fake and the wbc regular fake? The regular wba is the original. The super was made later within the last 15 years yet you came to accept that as a legit title

If you know the circumstances surrounding the franchise belt, that is why I believe it’s fake. I also don’t think Tank’s belt is legit again given the circumstances.

IMO, if a champion gives his belt to a potential opponent rather than fight him, I am not going to penalize the guy who got the belt.

[Rockybigblower]

Franchise Title and Super Title are essentially the same thing.

There's basically no difference between the two.

Then what about the dDiamond Belt and the cinco de mayo belt and the new union belt? Where do the Lonsdale and IBF Asia Pacific titles fit?

[IronDanHamza]

I covered the reg and super. Apologies it didn't land right.

No WBA regular are on any rating system as the WBA champion instead of a WBA super.

The IBF, WBO, and WBC each recognize one champion from the WBA on their ratings, none of those singular representation are, or ever have been, a WBA Regular champion if there is a WBA Super champion in the division. You will see WBA regulars included when there is no super. I don't know if there's a good example of a regular on an IBF board or some such because I think every division currently has a Super champion, but, it is those super champions you'll see on the IBF, WBO, and WBC boards. If there is a super champion he is the sole representative of the WBA on non-WBA ratings.

Conversely

You only need the case-in-point to find a franchise champion being excluded by the other bodies as the WBC champion on their boards. Haney is who all of the other 3 list.

There is no analog to this in WBA belts and never has been. There was never once any rating board that ever rated a regular instead of the super. There are only rating boards that recognize the regular due to lack of a super.

There is a situation where the boards refuse to recognize a franchise over a normal. It's the normal getting the slot which is the official dispute for undisputed.

The rest is mostly guessing


The big difference is their roll outs. The WBC-F is still, by paperwork and official WBC documents, nontransferable. That's probably why the IBF, WBA, and WBO refuse to recognize it when there is a WBC-normal to opt for. The WBA was very clear, the Super transfers and is a higher title than the regular. never changed their tune, never acted one way while their rules read the opposite, it's easier to adopt.

I doubt the IBF, WBO, and WBA want to recognize a belt only the WBC can control and can make up rules for as they go. Clear defined mandos and transfers are probably the hold up, imo. Because right now they could crown George and everyone but the WBC would need a reason to strip him. It puts them stuck on a low profile winner while the WBC has the ability to just from low profile winners to high profile money makers regardless of in ring ability. It's their award for representing the WBC and at the moment they can do whatever they want with it but force the other 3 to go along. If the other 3 go along, the WBC can do whatever they want indefinitely.

Why would it matter what the other bodies recognise?

The WBC have stated that where there’s a franchise champion that is the highest regarded champion.

What else is there to argue?

[IronDanHamza]

Then what about the dDiamond Belt and the cinco de mayo belt and the new union belt? Where do the Lonsdale and IBF Asia Pacific titles fit?

Not legitimate titles as far as I’m aware.

Those orgs would have to clarify.

[hhh1200]

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.

The men are Crawford, Taylor, Canelo and Usyk. There's a bunch of buffoonery at 135. 3 so-called undisputed champs passing belts around. Joke!

[Marchegiano]

Why would it matter what the other bodies recognise?

The WBC have stated that where there’s a franchise champion that is the highest regarded champion.

What else is there to argue?

That's how cross recognition works and the difference between official and unofficial.

I've emailed the WBA, WBO, and IBF on the situation to see if they'll share anything to clarify. So maybe I'll be posting something a little more than take my word for it bull, but until then, basically, all the belts we call illegitimate are illegitimate because they are not universally recognized by the universally recognized bodies.

No interim champion who never became a real champion is included in any legitimate list of champions. Because no body recognizes any other body's interim. That said, if you look at their own documentation they say their belts are equal. What I mean is, sticking with WBC, if you look at WBC's documents the WBC says the interim is equal to the normal champion. If you look at the WBO they too have an interim they also claim equals their normal champion. The WBC does not recognize the WBO's interim. The WBO does not recognize the WBC's interim. The result is interim titles are not official major titles. Just like Gold, Silver, Recess, etc. If the other bodies don't recognize it too that's why you don't see those names on lists. You don't see interims on ratings outside of their own body and you don't see interims on say Ring listing the WBC champions. Because no one recognizes interims but them people who made them.