Why the WBA created the Super Champion

[joe strong]

After Lewis defeated Holyfield the WBA ordered Lewis to defend the title against John Ruiz of Puerto Rico, who was then an obscure Don King fighter who had been made the WBA's number one-ranked contender. The WBA gave permission for Lewis to fight his WBC mandatory Michael Grant first if he would fight Ruiz next, to which Lewis agreed. Opposed to this, King challenged this decision in court on the basis of a clause in the Lewis-Holyfield rematch contract that said Lewis's first bout as undisputed champion would be against the WBA's number one contender. Lewis was therefore to be stripped of his WBA belt if he fought Grant first. It was because of this that the WBA instated its "Super Champion" title, giving unified titleholders who also hold a WBA belt more time to defend against mandatory challengers...

[Eff Pandas]

I think it's just about collecting more sanctioning fees.

[joe strong]

I think it's just about collecting more sanctioning fees.

Absolutely but this is where it all started...

[asgarth]

I dont think its reasonable to have several mandatory fights if you unify the belts. The sanctioning bodies should hold a tournament to establish a recognized mandatory. For example the #1 from the WBA should fight the #1 from WBC in order to become the mandatory challenger.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

I dont think its reasonable to have several mandatory fights if you unify the belts. The sanctioning bodies should hold a tournament to establish a recognized mandatory. For example the #1 from the WBA should fight the #1 from WBC in order to become the mandatory challenger.

I agree with this. If a fighter manages to unify the titles these days, he's got one hell of a road ahead of him. So, at the top, he can't be taking four different mandatories a year. Having the number one contenders face each other would make for interesting fights and the champion would definitely be getting a worthy challenger.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

After Lewis defeated Holyfield the WBA ordered Lewis to defend the title against John Ruiz of Puerto Rico, who was then an obscure Don King fighter who had been made the WBA's number one-ranked contender. The WBA gave permission for Lewis to fight his WBC mandatory Michael Grant first if he would fight Ruiz next, to which Lewis agreed. Opposed to this, King challenged this decision in court on the basis of a clause in the Lewis-Holyfield rematch contract that said Lewis's first bout as undisputed champion would be against the WBA's number one contender. Lewis was therefore to be stripped of his WBA belt if he fought Grant first. It was because of this that the WBA instated its "Super Champion" title, giving unified titleholders who also hold a WBA belt more time to defend against mandatory challengers...

Thanks for the history lesson. It's good to know how these things get started. I'm hoping to see the end of the super champion crap, but it's not looking good.

[Scipio2009]

I dont think its reasonable to have several mandatory fights if you unify the belts. The sanctioning bodies should hold a tournament to establish a recognized mandatory. For example the #1 from the WBA should fight the #1 from WBC in order to become the mandatory challenger.

Why is it unreasonable? Each sanctioning bodies goes about establishing their title challengers differently, so the ratings are unlikely to be unified. On top of that, if the ratings work out, a sanctioning body's top challenger generally ends up as a good fighter.

With the governing bodies (at least WBC/WBA/IBF) working together, you also end up with better timing of everything; each body gets 12-16 months to call for a fight.

From then on, it's on the fighter; tick through the mandatories to keep busy, taking on marquee fights (against fighters not viewed highly by the governing bodies) when lulls open up in the schedule.

[Mr.MojoRisin']

Too many damn belts is what it is.

[asgarth]

Why is it unreasonable? Each sanctioning bodies goes about establishing their title challengers differently, so the ratings are unlikely to be unified. On top of that, if the ratings work out, a sanctioning body's top challenger generally ends up as a good fighter.

With the governing bodies (at least WBC/WBA/IBF) working together, you also end up with better timing of everything; each body gets 12-16 months to call for a fight.

From then on, it's on the fighter; tick through the mandatories to keep busy, taking on marquee fights (against fighters not viewed highly by the governing bodies) when lulls open up in the schedule.

Yeah if the ratings work out, but just the last couple of years Wade was the mandatory for one of Golovkins belts.
I know he got the mandatory status after tuerano johnson was injured, but
1) he shouldnt have been upgraded to mandatory status just because johnson got injured. He should have fought a final eliminator to get the spot.
2) even Tureano Johnson didnt really earn his mandatory spot. the guy only won against earmonn o'kane (who?)

Another example are several of brooks mandatories. I dont know which one exactly, but two of the following three were IBF mandatories: Bizier, Jojo Dan and Gavin. Neither of them were worthy.

So I still dont think it's reasonable, if someone unifies all the belts (WBA, WBO, IBF, WBC), that he has to be bothered with one mandatory for each sanctioning body and I certainly dont think its fair to force 2 mandatories at the same time from two different sanctioning bodies (See the lewis example above).

[Scipio2009]

Yeah if the ratings work out, but just the last couple of years Wade was the mandatory for one of Golovkins belts.
I know he got the mandatory status after tuerano johnson was injured, but
1) he shouldnt have been upgraded to mandatory status just because johnson got injured. He should have fought a final eliminator to get the spot.
2) even Tureano Johnson didnt really earn his mandatory spot. the guy only won against earmonn o'kane (who?)

Another example are several of brooks mandatories. I dont know which one exactly, but two of the following three were IBF mandatories: Bizier, Jojo Dan and Gavin. Neither of them were worthy.

So I still dont think it's reasonable, if someone unifies all the belts (WBA, WBO, IBF, WBC), that he has to be bothered with one mandatory for each sanctioning body and I certainly dont think its fair to force 2 mandatories at the same time from two different sanctioning bodies (See the lewis example above).

The IBF waited their turn, and it was their time to have a challenger chosen; the fight ended up being no good, but the IBF got their opportunity (and will get another opportunity in a while).

Now it's the WBA's turn; though they could've been punks about it, they stood to the side to let the WBC mandatory be straightened out, stood by while Golovkin still pursued Alvarez after the WBC situation had cleared up, and simply let Golovkin not defend their belt (rather than stripping him) when he chose to fight a welterweight. The WBA now has their challenger, and the fight is supposed to be had before January 12th.

If you're willing to fight, mandatory defenses can be managed; the WBO rarely mandates anything, the IBF basically calls a mandatory every 14 months, and the WBC and WBA defer to the champion when pushing for mandatories.

A unified champion (WBC/WBA/IBF and WBO) can expect to have mandatory obligations spread over two years, generally speaking. 6 fights in 2 years and you'd have 2 fights to go against whomever (with the mandatories not all bum fights either). [Brook fought his mandatory, and then ended up choosing to take his second mandatory ahead of schedule, in an effort to free up his fight schedule for a more marquee fight in the summer. Injuries didn't help either]