Comments Thread For: WBA Declines To Sanction Golovkin-Brook Middleweight Bout

[Eastcoast]

As the WBA title won't be on the line, does that mean GGG will still be WBA champ even if he loses, and could still go on to break the record for most consecutive defences?

Idk. I haven't bothered going thru their rules for that. Normally if a champion loses a fight at or under the weight division, they automatically lose their title regardless if it's on the line. But the IBF ignored that when they let Judah keep his belt after losing to Baldomir. I could see the WBA doing the same here letting GGG keep the title if he loses, embarrassing to call yourself a champion at that point though.

Of course the argument can be made, if he's Golovkin's eligible to lose the title in the event he loses this fight (Jacobs made the full champion), then this counts as a title defense.

[Jewish-Reptile]

In 2010, Felix Sturm was the WBA champion and GGG was the interim champ. There was no super champion and no regular champion at MW.

When GGG asked the WBA to mandate a fight between he and Sturm, the WBA response was to reintroduced the super title and award it to Sturm. They then told GGG the title he was mandated to fight for had been down-graded to "regular" status.

So as I'm concerned, Sturm was a paper champion after that, and Golovkin became the WBA MW champ by beating Nilson Tapia, in the ring.

Ok, so that because the WBA refused to strip Sturm because he never lost you consider GGG the interim then regular champ to have supeceded him without having beat the top ranked guy in the WBA rankings.

Before I was just joking around with you but this is a new level of mindless bull shyt.

What is it with GGG, you're usually an unbiased boxing eductaed opionist, I've never held you in the regard I hold guys like Juebi, Maxi and Golovkin, nobody is asking you to do anything you don't want here just look at it rationally.

[therealpugilist]

As a standalone decision I would understand this and say maybe that's fine but they sanctioned Makoto Fuchigami as a "title" challenger. This is a metric ****ton better than that fight. So this looks like an attention grab to look more discerning and credible, even though we know they're not very discerning or credible.



He is not the middleweight champion, fine, but Geale was the Ring's number two contender when Golovkin made him look like nothing actually.

what was he when Cotto did the same thing?


How and who had him number two when he lost to Darren Barker 2 fights prior and right before he beat a no name with a 12-4 record?

[kafkod]

Ok, so that because the WBA refused to strip Sturm because he never lost you consider GGG the interim then regular champ to have supeceded him without having beat the top ranked guy in the WBA rankings.

Before I was just joking around with you but this is a new level of mindless bull shyt.

What is it with GGG, you're usually an unbiased boxing eductaed opionist, I've never held you in the regard I hold guys like Juebi, Maxi and Golovkin, nobody is asking you to do anything you don't want here just look at it rationally.

Sturm's promoters paid the WBA to reintroduce the super title at MW and allow Sturm to fight for it against a no-hoper instead of fulfulling his mandatory obligation to defend against GGG.

They then told GGG the title for which he had been number 1 contender for nearly 2 years had been downgraded to regular. That was corrupt as **** and totally unfair.

Corruption in the sanctioning organisations was rife in boxing back then, even more so than now, and that was one of the most blatent examples of it. As I said, in my eyes, Sturm was a paper champion after that happened, and Golovkin was the real WBA MW champ.

[OnePunch]

Don't even try and teach him anything he prob think the streak will carry on if was a draw, the lil g kool aid clouds these dudes judgement

actually it would dummy, because a "draw" is considered a successful defense because the champ keeps his title........

[kafkod]

Idk. I haven't bothered going thru their rules for that. Normally if a champion loses a fight at or under the weight division, they automatically lose their title regardless if it's on the line. But the IBF ignored that when they let Judah keep his belt after losing to Baldomir. I could see the WBA doing the same here letting GGG keep the title if he loses, embarrassing to call yourself a champion at that point though.

Of course the argument can be made, if he's Golovkin's eligible to lose the title in the event he loses this fight (Jacobs made the full champion), then this counts as a title defense.

It would be an interesting situation, to say the least.

[GoldenGloveLove]

what was he when Cotto did the same thing?


How and who had him number two when he lost to Darren Barker 2 fights prior and right before he beat a no name with a 12-4 record?

I'm only telling you the fact of the matter, not seeking your agreement with the rating. That was the Ring rating, plain and simple. You set the standard of being top three rated, and he fit the standard.

[kafkod]

what was he when Cotto did the same thing?

He was a severly weight drained fighter coming straight off a devasting KO defeat in his previous fight.

[Can'tHoldMeBack]

As the WBA title won't be on the line, does that mean GGG will still be WBA champ even if he loses, and could still go on to break the record for most consecutive defences?

WBA stated in article title will become vacant if GGG was to lose

[M Bison]

Won't matter one bit to GGG or anybody else....look at all the GGG haters trolling this article....bunch of idiots...

Welcome to the boxing forums you might call them trolls I'd just call them hipsters they want to root for the most unlikeable character about to seem like they're a purist of the sport.