Tweet
Not that simple is it.
When it was first introduced in 2001 it was just for unified champions in recognition of the additional mandatory burden on them. In 2009 this rule was amended to make any WBA champion who had 5 defences a 'super' champion and took away the requirement to be unified (the sole beneficiary of this puzzling rules change was WBA favourite one Adnan Ćatić who was facing a troubling mandatory requirement at the time)... problem this leaves us is obvious - under these rules the 'super' title shouldn't in theory be allowed to be won in the ring. Beating the super champion should net you the regular title until you got 5 defenses of your own. Cept it ain't even that simple.
Dudes at the WBA will sometimes make you a Super champ when you unify, sometimes they won't (Indongo wasn't)
They will sometimes make you a 'Super' when you reach 5 defences, sometimes they won't (Golovkin wasn't)
They will sometimes make you a 'Super' just because they damn well feel like it (Tank was even though Machado was incumbent, Fedor Chudinov was when Ward vacated, Cotto was after fighting Yuri Foreman).
Sometimes they'll make you 'Super' when you beat the 'Super' Champ (Jezreel was, Machado was... and then wasn't).
Sometimes they'll even leapfrog the regular titleholder altogether and fight for a vacant 'Super' title (Mr Catic again vs Fedor Chudinov).
Damn ****'s all over the place.
Anyway, I digress... point being we got a situation where sometimes there is a both a super champion and a regular and sometimes there is just a regular 'World' champion.
Rules I play by are that when there's an incumbent Super champ they take precedence, when they're ain't I count the regular 'World' title as the legit one. There's no hard and fast rules of course, so you can play it how you like, but if you choose to simply ignore the WBA regular you're cutting out a good few well known titleholders - Broner for one, Linares, Maidana, Badou Jack...
When it was first introduced in 2001 it was just for unified champions in recognition of the additional mandatory burden on them. In 2009 this rule was amended to make any WBA champion who had 5 defences a 'super' champion and took away the requirement to be unified (the sole beneficiary of this puzzling rules change was WBA favourite one Adnan Ćatić who was facing a troubling mandatory requirement at the time)... problem this leaves us is obvious - under these rules the 'super' title shouldn't in theory be allowed to be won in the ring. Beating the super champion should net you the regular title until you got 5 defenses of your own. Cept it ain't even that simple.
Dudes at the WBA will sometimes make you a Super champ when you unify, sometimes they won't (Indongo wasn't)
They will sometimes make you a 'Super' when you reach 5 defences, sometimes they won't (Golovkin wasn't)
They will sometimes make you a 'Super' just because they damn well feel like it (Tank was even though Machado was incumbent, Fedor Chudinov was when Ward vacated, Cotto was after fighting Yuri Foreman).
Sometimes they'll make you 'Super' when you beat the 'Super' Champ (Jezreel was, Machado was... and then wasn't).
Sometimes they'll even leapfrog the regular titleholder altogether and fight for a vacant 'Super' title (Mr Catic again vs Fedor Chudinov).
Damn ****'s all over the place.
Anyway, I digress... point being we got a situation where sometimes there is a both a super champion and a regular and sometimes there is just a regular 'World' champion.
Rules I play by are that when there's an incumbent Super champ they take precedence, when they're ain't I count the regular 'World' title as the legit one. There's no hard and fast rules of course, so you can play it how you like, but if you choose to simply ignore the WBA regular you're cutting out a good few well known titleholders - Broner for one, Linares, Maidana, Badou Jack...
Comment