Does the WBA "regular" title count as a legit title?

[Willy Wanker]

WBA Champion still technically a world champion. Super title initially intended for those who unify belts. Dont break your heads over it. Read more here
https://www.wbaboxing.com/wba-super-...s#.XYptcBhlCyU

Problem is there are cases where a WBA champ wasn't even unified, but still had the Super Champion status. They aren't consistent with their own rules.

[Marchegiano]

It doesn't matter what the WBA says it is it matters what the other bodies say their belt is equal to.

According to the WBC the WBC is equal to the WBA Super, not Regular.

The IBF and WBO claim their belts are equal to the Super not Regular.

The WBA can claim the regular is a real world title but legitimation has never worked that way.

The WBO and IBF are not legit bodies because they say they are. They are legitimate bodies because the standing legits, the WBC and WBA, recognized their legitimacy by recognizing equality amongst the bodies.

That's why the IBO isn't a world body and the WBA Regular isn't a world belt. No one, not even the first sanctioning body, can claim anything without the other powers agreeing.

[daggum]

why would you consider any title legit when you can win one like tank davis did fighting jesus cuellar? a guy who had never fought at 130 and was coming off a loss. its just silly to throw every belt holder in the same boat. this sounds like a not so subtle way of attacking ggg because he had the regular belt for some time. so tank davis was more legit than ggg for fighting cuellar? if you look into things like why was ggg regular champ for so long? it was because sturm wanted to be elevated to super champion to avoid the fight, even paying off a third party to bribe the wba. so sturm is more of a champion because he didnt want to fight? hes a champ in name only when you do that.

[Larry the boss]

why would you consider any title legit when you can win one like tank davis did fighting jesus cuellar? a guy who had never fought at 130 and was coming off a loss. its just silly to throw every belt holder in the same boat. this sounds like a not so subtle way of attacking ggg because he had the regular belt for some time. so tank davis was more legit than ggg for fighting cuellar? if you look into things like why was ggg regular champ for so long? it was because sturm wanted to be elevated to super champion to avoid the fight, even paying off a third party to bribe the wba. so sturm is more of a champion because he didnt want to fight? hes a champ in name only when you do that.

Well GGG won his from Milton Nunez who fought the great Anibal Miranda who was 8-16-1 the fight before...so?????

[john l]

When Manny and Matthysee paraded it around it counted. PBC certainly counted it calling Pac a champion during the buildup to the Thurman fight. So it will count when Crawford beats Bes***** for it next year.

No it wont count. Just because some uninformed people was calling it such before don't mean it will be counted by people who know. All those BS interim, regular, unleaded, decaff or any other BS title will NEVER be counted by anyone who knows boxing. Four is 3 too many, but that where I draw line otherwise just give every one a title and then every fight can be a unification fight.

[Citizen Koba]

thing is there was no super champ and he was the only WBA champ at the time...Thats how Floyd ended up super champ by beating Maidana..nice try tho

That's cool man, nice to see we're in agreement. If you read my long ass post above (#21) you'll find that's exactly how I figure it on a consistent basis...

(I'll skip to the pertinent bit)

...

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...

So yeah. I count Broner at WW, Badou, Jorges at LW and Golovkin from the time he became sole WBA MW champ (15 defenses), but not Fielding or Canelo for instance.

Been saying this the last few years, though it seems like a lotta folk change their policy depending on which fighters are involved... just checking you weren't one of 'em my man.

[DARTH SILKWORMS]

People need to be consistent. Count the super, count the world or count both, but don't pick and choose based on circumstance.

Dmitry Bivol doesn't hold the super title. Is he a world champion? If he is, then so was Fiedling. Either the WBA world title counts or it doesn't. Not this "well, let's count it sometimes, if there's no super champion at the time, etc etc." That's bull****. If the WBC world championship is vacant, does that mean the WBC international champion is now a world champion? No. So why would the super title being vacant make regular champion Bivol a world champion?