Which belt is more relevant? WBO World Belt or WBA World Belt (regular)

Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Sugar Adam Ali
    Undisputed Champion
    Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
    • Apr 2013
    • 27630
    • 970
    • 1,174
    • 82,827

    #11
    None of the belts mean anything... It's the fighters that hold them that bring credibility..

    Comment

    • techliam
      Caneloweight Champion
      Super Champion - 5,000-10,000 posts
      • Apr 2012
      • 5525
      • 370
      • 23
      • 42,424

      #12
      Originally posted by Koba-Grozny
      Just to clarify the officially stated purpose of the WBA 'Super' title is for WBA world champions who are also champions for one the other orgs. ie. It's a belt for unified champs. The reason, they say, is to allow for less regular defences in acknowledgement of the responsibilities a unified champ has to defend his non-WBA titles. Apparently it was instigated at the suggestion of Lennox Lewis. Myself, I think it's a crock and basically an excuse for more sanctioning fees, but I can see the logic behind it.
      You know its a scam as the WBA frequently crown WBA Super champions who aren't unified.

      Examples - Floyd at 154, Frampton, Rigondeaux, Donaire at 130 etc. Theres plenty more examples

      In fact, its funny when you have unified WBA regular champions - Froch was 'unified' WBA regular and IBF, Canelo was 'unified' WBA regular and WBC. Its beyond a joke

      Comment

      • techliam
        Caneloweight Champion
        Super Champion - 5,000-10,000 posts
        • Apr 2012
        • 5525
        • 370
        • 23
        • 42,424

        #13
        Originally posted by Sugar Adam Ali
        None of the belts mean anything... It's the fighters that hold them that bring credibility..
        Yes, and same for the imaginary lineal title, and other worthless accolades including WBC Diamond, RING championship, Fighter of the Decade etc

        Comment

        • Citizen Koba
          Deplorable Peacenik
          Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
          • Jun 2013
          • 20443
          • 3,941
          • 3,786
          • 2,875,273

          #14
          Originally posted by techliam
          You know its a scam as the WBA frequently crown WBA Super champions who aren't unified.

          Examples - Floyd at 154, Frampton, Rigondeaux, Donaire at 130 etc. Theres plenty more examples

          In fact, its funny when you have unified WBA regular champions - Froch was 'unified' WBA regular and IBF, Canelo was 'unified' WBA regular and WBC. Its beyond a joke
          Yes indeed. I just thought it might be useful for the TS to know the WBAs 'official' stance on it.

          Sturm was the first example that occurred to me, but yeah, there's many egregious cases of their total disregard for the own regulations.
          Last edited by Citizen Koba; 10-16-2016, 12:20 PM.

          Comment

          • HeadShots
            Undisputed Champion
            Unified Champion - 10,00-20,000 posts
            • Sep 2016
            • 10036
            • 1,933
            • 129
            • 72,763

            #15
            WBA belt because Sturm ducked GGG for yrs.

            Comment

            • Scipio2009
              Undisputed Champion
              Unified Champion - 10,00-20,000 posts
              • Apr 2014
              • 13741
              • 276
              • 64
              • 98,172

              #16
              Originally posted by BoliviaChiLEsp
              Thurman who doesn't have the Super belt.

              Don't you consider him a World Champion (there is no Super Champion in his division)?


              Thanks.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...xing_champions
              Thurman's situation is different, as he's simply the WBA's top champion, regardless of what his belt is called.

              Comment

              Working...
              TOP