WBA really needs to fix "Super" and "Regular"

[Combat Talk Radio]

I'm not even talking who to face who. But following history and lineage is straight up exhausting. You could build a college course around it.

[paulf]

That is their intention. The confusion allows them to get paid twice.

I think ESPN, Yahoo, Ring, etc should only recognize the Super belt, and list the champion as vacant where there is only a WBA regular.

The WBA title is now the WBC Silver.

[Rockybigblower]

Who really cares what titles fighters have anymore. For the fighters...sure...it's their bargaining chip...but for the fans...we just want to see good fighters fight each other. An example would be...I would rather watch Kovalev fight Joe Smith Jr than watch Ward fight Bieterbiev.

[Combat Talk Radio]

Who really cares what titles fighters have anymore. For the fighters...sure...it's their bargaining chip...but for the fans...we just want to see good fighters fight each other. An example would be...I would rather watch Kovalev fight Joe Smith Jr than watch Ward fight Bieterbiev.

Titles are supposed to tell you who the best in the division is at that time.

Boxing is supposed to be about up and comers facing the top dog to prove they're now the best.

"Good fights" as you put it should result in one guy getting a title shot at some point.

But when you got two championships all it does is entice what Andrade just said: sit on a belt.

[Rockybigblower]

Titles are supposed to tell you who the best in the division is at that time.

Boxing is supposed to be about up and comers facing the top dog to prove they're now the best.

"Good fights" as you put it should result in one guy getting a title shot at some point.

But when you got two championships all it does is entice what Andrade just said: sit on a belt.

How many title holders do you consider are the best in their division? When it comes to title shots...there is a small pool of guys who get them and it's not based on talent or worth...it's based on promotion and money. That's why fighters who have previously had numerous chances keep getting dragged out for shots. See Andre Berto or Brandon Rios as examples. You will be able to put David Lemieux there shortly. Durable but beatable guys will always get the fights over young up and comers.

[Zn1]

I've often wondered if we even need the orgs, because if they can cover countries all over the world, why can't the athletic commissions do the same? They could come up with a standardised belt system and kick out all those greedy ****s that always seem to have their hands in the cookie jar, and just because they've "worked hard" to establish the system that supports it.

I don't even know anyone who could confidently name a champion AND which belts he holds these days

[Afi23]

At 160lbs, that "issue" was settled with GGG vs Jacobs (March 2017) but sanctioning bodies being their greedy self, the regular belt was brought back soon after (May 2017) with Murata vs N'Dam for the vacant regular belt.

[Combat Talk Radio]

How many title holders do you consider are the best in their division? When it comes to title shots...there is a small pool of guys who get them and it's not based on talent or worth...it's based on promotion and money. That's why fighters who have previously had numerous chances keep getting dragged out for shots. See Andre Berto or Brandon Rios as examples. You will be able to put David Lemieux there shortly. Durable but beatable guys will always get the fights over young up and comers.

The thing is, the "Super" champion is arguably the best in the division. Assuming there is one. That's true even now of the WBA.

Problem is, with different letter orgs there's different exposures internationally. So WBC really only means a damn in the US. WBA and, and to a lesser degree IBF, IBO and NABF have largely been overseas titles. It wasn't until Manny got schooled by a teacher from Down Under that the WBO was mostly trapped in the US, but then Horn lost it in the US so it's trapped there again.

Of the orgs though, WBO and IBF are the only consistent ones. WBC gets hype because of the promoters but it's just as guilty of this sprawl if not more.

[Jsmooth9876]

Titles are supposed to tell you who the best in the division is at that time.

Boxing is supposed to be about up and comers facing the top dog to prove they're now the best.

"Good fights" as you put it should result in one guy getting a title shot at some point.

But when you got two championships all it does is entice what Andrade just said: sit on a belt.

Theres already 4 titles anyway, how do you tell who the best is when most the time the champions dont even fight each other. How about we go to 1 title, then we will know who the best is.

[Randall Cunning]

What about when Machado beat Corrales for the "Super" title, then they downgraded him to "Regular" champ so Tank could fight for the "Super"