GGG v. Canelo may be for one belt come September

[Citizen Koba]

Canelo has said he isn't fighting for the WBC belt. I don't think Canelo is doing the IBF 2nd day weigh-in. I also don't see him being bothered with those IBF mandatories. When it comes down to it the WBA may be the only belt up for grabs in September. If GGG loses the belts will spread out and become vacant, right?

Yeah, the WBA and the much coveted IBO strap I'd imagine.

It's unclear whether Golovkin would lose the IBF trinket if Canelo chooses not to abide by their rules and Golovkin does lose (they may not consider it a legitimate title fight)- if it's clear Canelo is not paying the WBC sanctioning fees it's possible they might pull a stunt like the WBA did with Lebedev - Gassiev, leaving Denis with the strap despite losing. Probably Golovkin would need to get this sanctioned in advance though.

EDIT. IBF rules.

http://www.ibfusbaregistration.com/ibfusba_02APR2014/downloads/Rules_Amended_Jan_27_2014.pdf

P2 rule 2.

2. Challenger’s Failure to Make Weight
If the Champion makes the weight and the Challenger fails to do so, the fight
may be staged with the understanding that the Champion will retain his title
whether he wins or loses the bout.

The WBC rules are less clear cut... 'discretion' is the term used more often than not.

http://wbcboxing.com/wbceng/Rules/WBCRulesandRegulationsJanuary2014.pdf

Probably the rules on non-title fights are the most relevant (p15 rule 3.13) but it remains unclear whether a loss would mean having to vacate the title - presumably not if it's a 'non-title' fight, but like everything else in the WBC rules it's basically what they decide, even retroactively if they choose. Either way special dispensation will be required for Golovkin to make the fight. They could, of course try to woo Canelo back by throwing another strap at him even if he refuses to acknowledge them, but in view of his public snubbing of them in recent weeks I'm not sure it's a good look (though leaving the strap with a losing Golovkin may hurt their credibility more).

[1hourRun]

This is simply not true. Especially in the most prestigious divisions. IBF heavyweight champion is Anthony Joshua. WBO champion is Joshua Parker. Who would be the betting favorite? IBF & WBO are both held by Andre Ward at light heavyweight. IBF middleweight champion is GGG. WBO champion is Billie Joe Saunders. Who would be the betting favorite?

Yes there are some decent WBO champions, thanks to Top Rank essentially being exclusive to the WBO, but the idea that the IBF champion is typically the weakest is simply not true. The IBF title is far more prestigious than the WBO title.




I see no reason to have disdain for the IBF for being honest and fair. If eventually they no longer have any top fighters because the top fighters prefer to have the rules broken in their favor, so be it. Worst thing that happens is the IBF loses recognition and we have one less title. I'd be all for it. Would love if the IBF went out of business. And the WBO too.




IBF has been recognized since 1983. WBO has been recognized since 2007. No comparison.

I completely disagree, you use one or two examples for the IBF having great champions : I'm talking about the sport as a whole and history overall -- you can look at the current champions in each division sure you are going to find one IBF champ here and there BUT really its not fair given that they are unified and hold others titles, still overall the WBA-WBC are the elite and lineal champions not just presently but historically. Also your opinion of Joshua being top HW is just your opinion - the purist hold Tyson Fury as THE champion.

You mentinoned the date the WBO was established in contrast to the IBF, I understand this like I said before I dont hold the WBO in high regard either for similar reasons : lineage and historical significance.

Lastly you said there is no reason to have disdain for the IBF -- I think its evident their policies have hurt boxing and will continue to slow the progress of the sport when they come in between meaningful fights and prioritize scrubs in their rankings over the bigger picture of having unification among the best.

[BoxingFan85]

If Golovkin were to lose, he would keep the belts then. Similar to Lamont Peterson keeping his IBF belt after getting KOed by Matthysse.

It depends on whether it is on the line or not.. The recent example would be Lebedev vs Gassiev.. Lebedev had only IBF on the line and he still holds WBA after the loss..

Only if Canelp doesn't make weight then different story

[Canelo and GGG]

Canelo will fight for WBA i guess

[original zero]

I completely disagree, you use one or two examples for the IBF having great champions : I'm talking about the sport as a whole and history overall -- you can look at the current champions in each division sure you are going to find one IBF champ here and there BUT really its not fair given that they are unified and hold others titles, still overall the WBA-WBC are the elite and lineal champions not just presently but historically.

I agree that the WBC & WBA are the elite. Always have been and perhaps always will be. But you said the IBF champion is typically the weakest, which simply isn't true. The WBO is typically the weakest.

Also your opinion of Joshua being top HW is just your opinion - the purist hold Tyson Fury as THE champion.

Fury has nothing to do with this. Parker is the weakest heavyweight champion, not Joshua. You're moving the goal posts. As for Fury, a purist would realize the lineal title became vacant when Fury announced his retirement, assuming he was ever lineal champion to begin with. A purist probably wouldn't have recognized Wlad/Chagaev when everyone knew Vitali was the #1 heavyweight in the world.

You mentinoned the date the WBO was established in contrast to the IBF, I understand this like I said before I dont hold the WBO in high regard either for similar reasons : lineage and historical significance.

Which is fine, but don't say the IBF is the lowest of the four when clearly it's the WBO that is the least regarded.

Lastly you said there is no reason to have disdain for the IBF -- I think its evident their policies have hurt boxing and will continue to slow the progress of the sport when they come in between meaningful fights and prioritize scrubs in their rankings over the bigger picture of having unification among the best.

The IBF doesn't prioritize anything other than fairness and honesty. The stars run from fairness and honesty because the stars want the rules broken in their favor.

The IBF is the only organization that guarantees unification priority above all else. The IBF allows other mandatories to take precedence over their own. The IBF bends over backwards to create and maintain unified champions. Look how long Wladimir was IBF champion and the unifications that take place during his reign.

But what the IBF doesn't allow is to blatantly ignore their mandatory for years on end.

[1hourRun]

I agree that the WBC & WBA are the elite. Always have been and perhaps always will be. But you said the IBF champion is typically the weakest, which simply isn't true. The WBO is typically the weakest.




Fury has nothing to do with this. Parker is the weakest heavyweight champion, not Joshua. You're moving the goal posts. As for Fury, a purist would realize the lineal title became vacant when Fury announced his retirement, assuming he was ever lineal champion to begin with. A purist probably wouldn't have recognized Wlad/Chagaev when everyone knew Vitali was the #1 heavyweight in the world.




Which is fine, but don't say the IBF is the lowest of the four when clearly it's the WBO that is the least regarded.




The IBF doesn't prioritize anything other than fairness and honesty. The stars run from fairness and honesty because the stars want the rules broken in their favor.

The IBF is the only organization that guarantees unification priority above all else. The IBF allows other mandatories to take precedence over their own. The IBF bends over backwards to create and maintain unified champions. Look how long Wladimir was IBF champion and the unifications that take place during his reign.

But what the IBF doesn't allow is to blatantly ignore their mandatory for years on end.

Does it really? it seems they been doing the opposite lately, from giving Vyacheslav Glazkov precedence in 2015 as Tyson Fury's mandatory to the current issue with Pulev...I dont see how they are bending over backwards if anything the WBA does a better job issuing a regular title or the WBC solving this problem by sometimes upgrading their top champion to the 'Diamond belt' but the IBF does not even want to issue a interim title for Pulev : the only time they do this is usually when the champion is injured.

Granted creating these other titles is a problem but in the case of Linares vs. Crolla it was the right thing to do as Linares now hold the WBA and is set to face Mikey to consolidate the WBC regular title. I think the IBF needs to improve on the way they handle these issues because what happened after Tyson Fury was stripped caused Charles Martin to become champion -- nobody can tell me that was good for boxing...had it been the WBC or WBA in that instance managing that problem I think they would of made the right choice.

Going back to the point of Tyson Fury, I dont know if he ever announced retirement -- I think we all know he was forced out of the sport due to PED and drug violations ; calling this a retirement is not appropriate.

Again you assert Parker is the weakest champion ( not that I care for Parker ) but Takam and Ruiz where top ten HW at some point ; Joshua beat a old Klitschko that was considered shot years ago and came back from nearly two years of inactivity -- take that name from Joshuas resume and it would be hard to say Anthony is better than Parker, and I dont like either of the two btw.

Lastly I thought your comment about Vitali was real funny like who wouldn't give the brothers a pass for not fighting each other and Vitalis resume was trash.

[Hatesrats]

Ah... another post fight excuse has been born LMBO
Alvarez didn't want to abide by the IBF'S rule, He weight cheated poor Twippy GEE

[original zero]

Does it really? it seems they been doing the opposite lately, from giving Vyacheslav Glazkov precedence in 2015 as Tyson Fury's mandatory to the current issue with Pulev...I dont see how they are bending over backwards if anything the WBA does a better job issuing a regular title or the WBC solving this problem by sometimes upgrading their top champion to the 'Diamond belt' but the IBF does not even want to issue a interim title for Pulev : the only time they do this is usually when the champion is injured.

Glazkov was an overdue mandatory before Fury ever fought for the title. The IBF allowed a WBO mandatory (Fury) to take precedence over their own mandatory on the condition that the IBF mandatory would be next. Klitschko & Fury both promised the IBF the winner of their fight would face Glazkov next, so in the interest of keeping a unified champion, the IBF further delayed an overdue mandatory to give priority to the mandatory of a rival organization.

[1hourRun]

Glazkov was an overdue mandatory before Fury ever fought for the title. The IBF allowed a WBO mandatory (Fury) to take precedence over their own mandatory on the condition that the IBF mandatory would be next. Klitschko & Fury both promised the IBF the winner of their fight would face Glazkov next, so in the interest of keeping a unified champion, the IBF further delayed an overdue mandatory to give priority to the mandatory of a rival organization.

Ok I'll give you that but getting back to the core of this debate : what sanctioning body is the weakest, is what this is all about you say the WBO is the weakest so lets lets assess the whole sport and not look for single examples like you did at HW with Joshua...anyone can pick their battles but lets see that logic apply to the whole board shall we?

Here are the current champions per division, I left out unified champions since it only makes sense because they are holding both titles ( IBF - WBO ) and I went ahead and put the IBF head to head with the WBO ; you tell me who comes out on top.

HW: ( IBF ) Joshua | ( WBO ) Joseph Parker - Debatable

Cruiser : ( IBF ) Murat Gassiev | ( WBO ) Oleksandr Usyk - Usyk ( WBO )

SMW : ( IBF ) James DeGale | ( WBO ) Zurdo Ramirez - Debatable

Middleweight: ( IBF ) GGG ( WBO ) | Billy Joe - GGG ( IBF )

Jr. Middleweight : ( IBF) Jarret Hurd | ( WBO ) Canelo just vacated. ( WBO )

Welterweight : ( IBF ) Kell Brook | ( WBO ) Pacman - Pacqiouao ( WBO )

Jr. Welterweight : (IBF) Indongo | ( WBO ) Crawford - Bud ( WBO )

Lightweight : ( IBF) Robert Easter Jr | ( WBO ) Terry Flanagan - Debatable.

Jr. Lightweight : ( IBF) Gervonta Davis | ( WBO) Vasyl Lomachenko - Loma ( WBO)
Featherweight : ( IBF ) Lee Selby | ( WBO ) Oscar Valdez - Valdez ( WBO )

jr. Featherweight : ( IBF ) Yukinori Oguni | ( WBO ) Jessie Magdaleno - Magdaleno ( WBO )

Bantamweight : ( IBF ) Lee Haskins | ( WBO ) Zolani Tete - Tete ( WBO )

Jr. Bantamweight : ( IBF ) Jerwin Acajas | ( WBO ) Naoya Inoue - Inoue lineal ( WBO )
Flyweight : ( IBF ) Donnie Nietes | ( WBO ) Zou Shiming - Nietes ( IBF )

Light Flyweight : ( IBF ) Akira Yaegashi | ( WBO ) Kosei Tanaka - gaved it to ( IBF )

Minimumweight : ( IBF ) Jose Argumedo | ( WBO ) Tatsuya ***uhara - ( IBF ) Jose Argumedo

There you have it my friend by far the WBO comes out ahead of the IBF, even if I gave you Joshua and Degale its still behind and I find it interesting that when I gave them a division it was debatable but It the opposite for the WBO ; they have the clear champions and Lineal : how many lineal champions do the IBF have up here? Pac is lineal, Crawford is lineal, Inoue is lineal.....I mean who can honestly being informed argue the IBF is better than the WBO?!

[original zero]

HW: ( IBF ) Joshua | ( WBO ) Joseph Parker - Debatable

you are insane.

take care.