Comments Thread For: WBC Prez Smiles: Spence-Garcia Will Have Diamond Belt at Stake

[N/A]

You don't recognize the WBA as a championship belt but the WBC belt you do? ??

I never recognized the WBO and I stopped recognizing the WBA in 2001 when they introduced the super championship.

I only recognize the WBC and IBF.

[BigStomps]

I never recognized the WBO and I stopped recognizing the WBA in 2001 when they introduced the super championship.

I only recognize the WBC and IBF.

Well please enlighten us and explain why you favor the WBC and IBF over the other two and what's the difference between all 4 organizations...?? Don't the WBC have multiple champs per division? Why is it okay for them but not the WBA?? What's wrong with the WBO?

[REYESdelBOXEO]

AND THE NEW , IBF & WBC WELTERWEIGHT CHAMPION of THE WORLD!

MIKEY GARCIA!

[killakali]

I don't recognize the WBA as a world championship and nobody else should either.

But you're accusing Haymon of bribery without any evidence. Just making up an accusation.

Plenty of promoters ask the WBA to sanction random fights for interim titles, so I'm not sure why you're complaining about Marcus Browne and not the other hundred examples that have nothing to do with Haymon.

he just does it more often. Here was no need for an interim title to Bivols belt or another title at 130 when machado already won it fromnthe champ and to have tank fight Cuéllar off inactivity and a loss for a belt was laughable

[N/A]

Well please enlighten us and explain why you favor the WBC and IBF over the other two and what's the difference between all 4 organizations...??

I already explained it. I never began recognizing the WBO. Three titles was enough. There was no legitimate reason to welcome a fourth.

Once the WBA created the super title, there was no reason to continue to recognize their world title. So for me, there were two world titles left.

The WBC and IBF both have plenty of flaws, and ideally there'd only be one world title instead of two, but two is still better than four.

Don't the WBC have multiple champs per division?

Every organization has a dozen or so champions per division. World, international, national, regional, youth, etc. What makes the WBA different is that they have both a world champion and a super world champion, making all of their world titles pointless. The WBC only has one world champion, same as the IBF and WBO. The WBA is alone in crowning multiple world champions in the same division. The WBC diamond title isn't a world title, it's an honorary belt given to significant non-title bouts, granting the winner the right to become mandatory if they so choose.

[N/A]

he just does it more often.

The most recent WBA ratings list three interim champions:


HEAVYWEIGHT - Trevor Bryan (Don King)

LIGHT HEAVYWEIGHT - Marcus Browne (Al Haymon)

BANTAMWEIGHT - Reymart Gaballo (JC Manangquil)

[BigStomps]

I already explained it. I never began recognizing the WBO. Three titles was enough. There was no legitimate reason to welcome a fourth.

Once the WBA created the super title, there was no reason to continue to recognize their world title. So for me, there were two world titles left.

The WBC and IBF both have plenty of flaws, and ideally there'd only be one world title instead of two, but two is still better than four.




Every organization has a dozen or so champions per division. World, international, national, regional, youth, etc. What makes the WBA different is that they have both a world champion and a super world champion, making all of their world titles pointless. The WBC only has one world champion, same as the IBF and WBO. The WBA is alone in crowning multiple world champions in the same division. The WBC diamond title isn't a world title, it's an honorary belt given to significant non-title bouts, granting the winner the right to become mandatory if they so choose.

So what do you call that piece of shet belt Charlo has in the middleweight division???
Why the WBC make a belt for him when Triple g was already the championship???
Now dont try to justify what the WBC does why you shetting on the WBA! They are all pieces of shet organizations! Not one is better than the other!

[N/A]

So what do you call that piece of shet belt Charlo has in the middleweight division???

Charlo is the interim champion.

[Scary_canary]

Because the WBC diamond champion is often able to demand to be made mandatory. So in the instance of Spence, who holds the IBF world title, he has no way of becoming the mandatory for another organization, except the WBC via the diamond title.




What's wrong with that?

Poor porter there aren’t any cherry picks for him.... so there will be 3 mandatories now- Spence/Garcia winner, Thurman and ugas

[Sledgeweather17]

Well please enlighten us and explain why you favor the WBC and IBF over the other two and what's the difference between all 4 organizations...?? Don't the WBC have multiple champs per division? Why is it okay for them but not the WBA?? What's wrong with the WBO?

I'm not the guy who wrote the comment but I totally agree with him.

I also recognize the IBF and WBC the most.

I respect the IBF for always following its rules no matter what.

I respect the wbc because even though they break their rules all the time, it is almost always for the greater good.

They suspended all of Stevenson's mandatory obligations for years, but it was so that he would be free to negotiate the Kovalev fight.

They allowed Mayweather to defend both his 147 and 154 belt in the Maidana fight even though it was a 147 fight, but that was done in order to free Mayweather for the May/Pac negotiations. They didn't want anything to interfere with that fight.

Charlo has been hard done by the wbc and I honestly don't like it because I want the Charlo/Golovkin or Charlo/Canelo fight, but they ignored their rules because they wanted the big GGG vs Canelo fights to be made and didn't want to get in the way of that.

So yes they break their rules but it is almost always for the greater good, or in order to allow the 'bigger' fight to be made.