Why are posters now trying to slam the WBA"regular" belt??

[Ray*]

It depends on which side of the streets you are on, or which narratives you are trying to push.

[soul_survivor]

For years I have been saying it was no real title, yet people wanted to say it was because GGG defended it and then when Manny won it from Mattyshee other posters wanted to claim it was a legit title...So which is it?

Sturm openly avoided GGG for a WBA fight. Canelo could have directly gone after any of the best SMW fighters.

Can you show me all the posts that supposedly speak very highly of Manny's WBA regular belt? The issue is Thurman hasnt fought in years and is holding the super belt hostage, so whats the issue there?

[!! Shawn]

For years I have been saying it was no real title, yet people wanted to say it was because GGG defended it and then when Manny won it from Mattyshee other posters wanted to claim it was a legit title...So which is it?

Its a little different when you have teh WBA regular belt, because Felix Sturm paid the WBA $300k in bribes to be elevated without unifying, with the understanding that he would never have to face his mandatory GGG.

Sturm for all intents and purposes vacated the belt, but paid so that he still had it on paper.

[!! Shawn]

Was it a real title when Broner won it from Paulie?

Nah.. you got to apply common sense, man. It's reasonable to say that the top fighter under each org is the champion. The way I look at it is that the WBA world (what we call the 'Regular') is legit so long as there isn't an incumbent 'super' champion. If there's a 'Super' champ he's the man, if there ain't the guy with the 'regular' is the man.

So in the case of Broner I'd say his title was legit. In the case of Golovkin it was legit from the moment Geale vacated the 'super', in the case of Canelo his SMW title will become legit if Mundo vacates or is stripped, but not if someone wins it off him (unless the WBA decide in their wisdom that they ain't passing it on - their rules on this are plain stupid even when they bother to follow 'em).

Thing is there ain't a clear set of rules so the best thing to do is decide yourself what you think a fair and reasonable and system is and apply it consistently and equally whether you like the fighter it applies to or not. No-one can ask more than that.

In GGG's case, Sturm was the regular Champion, GGG was his mandatory, Sturm bribed the WBA to elevate him to super champion status with $300k in cash, as confirmed later by his promoter.

The WBA's own rules say you have to unify to become super champion. Sturm didn't fight, just one day he is mysteriously super champion, and doesn't have to face GGG anymore.

[anonymous2.0]

For years I have been saying it was no real title, yet people wanted to say it was because GGG defended it and then when Manny won it from Mattyshee other posters wanted to claim it was a legit title...So which is it?

You should name them, because its common knowledge on BS that the WBA regular title is trash.

[Citizen Koba]

In GGG's case, Sturm was the regular Champion, GGG was his mandatory, Sturm bribed the WBA to elevate him to super champion status with $300k in cash, as confirmed later by his promoter.

The WBA's own rules say you have to unify to become super champion. Sturm didn't fight, just one day he is mysteriously super champion, and doesn't have to face GGG anymore.

I know that as well as anyone. I've repeated it more times than I care to mention, but people still say 'yeah.. but the super is legitimate because the WBA say so'... ****. What actually happened is that the WBA actually changed their own rules sometime in late 2009/early 2010 from the 'super' being just a recognition of the added burdens of being unified to being (with no explained rationale) for anyone with 5 title defenses or more - which 'just happened' to fit Sturms situation and no-one elses at the time. Pure corruption. Happened again with Sturm at SMW and the Chudinov farce. The **** with Muchado and Tank at 130 is at least as blatant. Not to mention that the '5 defenses' ruling means that under no circumstances should the 'super' title be passed on in the ring, yet sometimes they say it is... sometimes not. And also with GGG - he should have been elevated after 5 defenses according to their own rewritten rules... yet was not. All completely inconsistent BS yet people still try to say this or that title is 'more' legitimate or 'less' legitimate.

Anyway... ****. I shouldn't get started on that BS.

*deep breath*

Regardless. What I've tried to do, since few other people really care enough about whether the Super is really legit in each case, is try to come up with a system that is as fair and consistent as it can be without just simply ignoring the whole sorry farce surrounding the WBA titles..

[!! Shawn]

I know that as well as anyone. I've repeated it more times than I care to mention, but people still say 'yeah.. but the super is legitimate because the WBA say so'... ****. What actually happened is that the WBA actually changed thier own rules sometime in late 2009/early 2010 from the 'super' being just a recognition of the added burdens of being unified to being (with no explained rationale) for anyone with 5 title defenses or more - which 'just happened' to fit Sturms situation and no-one elses at the time. Pue corruption. Happened again with Sturm at SMW and the Chudinov farce. The **** with Muchado and Tank at 130 is at least as blatant.

Anyway... ****. I shouldn't get started on that BS.

*deep breath*

Regardless. What I've tried to do, since few other people really care enough about whether the Super is really legit in each case, is try to come up with a system that is as fair and consistent as it can be without just simply ignoring the whole sorry farce surrounding the WBA titles..

Unfortunately, corruption and boxing are inseparable, which is why its important to consider the actual circumstances in making evaluations. When corruption is involved, its not really possible to just apply any kind of blanket evaluation to all cases.

I don't think anyone would dispute that GGG was clearly the actual WBA champion during the rest of Sturms farcical Sven Ottke like reign.

[Citizen Koba]

Unfortunately, corruption and boxing are inseparable, which is why its important to consider the actual circumstances in making evaluations. When corruption is involved, its not really possible to just apply any kind of blanket evaluation to all cases.

I don't think anyone would dispute that GGG was clearly the actual WBA champion during the rest of Sturms farcical Sven Ottke like reign.

Clearly you ain't spent enough time with the denizens of NSB if you think no-one would dispute that. What I think you mean is that any reasonable person would consider Sturm's reign as 'Super' champion to be fraudulent... and yet, sadly, as a result of the corruption he was considered the real 'champion' by the world and fought better opposition than GGG as a result... so was it really the fraudulent reign? It's like a lie being made truth.

[Chollo Vista]

I know that as well as anyone. I've repeated it more times than I care to mention, but people still say 'yeah.. but the super is legitimate because the WBA say so'... ****. What actually happened is that the WBA actually changed their own rules sometime in late 2009/early 2010 from the 'super' being just a recognition of the added burdens of being unified to being (with no explained rationale) for anyone with 5 title defenses or more - which 'just happened' to fit Sturms situation and no-one elses at the time. Pure corruption. Happened again with Sturm at SMW and the Chudinov farce. The **** with Muchado and Tank at 130 is at least as blatant. Not to mention that the '5 defenses' ruling means that under no circumstances should the 'super' title be passed on in the ring, yet sometimes they say it is... sometimes not. And also with GGG - he should have been elevated after 5 defenses according to their own rewritten rules... yet was not. All completely inconsistent BS yet people still try to say this or that title is 'more' legitimate or 'less' legitimate.

Anyway... ****. I shouldn't get started on that BS.

*deep breath*

Regardless. What I've tried to do, since few other people really care enough about whether the Super is really legit in each case, is try to come up with a system that is as fair and consistent as it can be without just simply ignoring the whole sorry farce surrounding the WBA titles..

What's up Koba? Happy Holiday's brother

How do you feel about G ducking Charlo and is being lined up to get another shot at Canelo despite the WBC mandating G and Charlo fight for a shot at Canelo?

If G somehow beats Canelo for the WBC, based off your theory regarding G vs Sturm, this would really make Charlo the champ since G was reluctant to fight Charlo, correct?

[KingHippo]

I can't understand why people are still expecting any kind of objectivity from Golovkin fans. Let these focks have their hero.