Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

WBA "regular" champions are NOT world champions

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by ShoulderRoll View Post
    Not when there is a so called "super" champion who ranks above them at the same weight.

    Boxing writers and fans need to take a hard line and stop giving this farce any credibility or legitimacy. Maybe then the WBA will keep their word and get rid of this bogus title like they promised.
    And maybe you shouldn't get to keep the belt hostage, and maybe boxing organisations should let you fight the same man thrice, if you already beat him convincingly for a fúcking title. Or fight the same guy twice in one year, both for a title fight, if you beat him with a clear UD.

    Comment


    • #12
      Yep, guys like Murata, Pacquiao, Rojas should not be considered "World Champions". Inoue, even if he's the best at 118 is not a real champion either.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by pillowfists98 View Post
        Yep, guys like Murata, Pacquiao, Rojas should not be considered "World Champions". Inoue, even if he's the best at 118 is not a real champion either.
        I have all the respect in the world for Pacquiao's skills and career. But he's not a real world champion right now, the true WBA champ is Keith Thurman and we all know it.

        Comment


        • #14
          Boxing is a business.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by ShoulderRoll View Post
            I have all the respect in the world for Pacquiao's skills and career. But he's not a real world champion right now, the true WBA champ is Keith Thurman and we all know it.
            How can he be when he's no longer active? He hasn't fought in 16 months, and he has no fight coming up.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by ShoulderRoll View Post
              Not when there is a so called "super" champion who ranks above them at the same weight.

              Boxing writers and fans need to take a hard line and stop giving this farce any credibility or legitimacy. Maybe then the WBA will keep their word and get rid of this bogus title like they promised.
              Unless a guy holds all the belts, should they be considered a "world champ?" Only Usyk holds that distinction right now. Previously it was Bud.

              All these guys are mostly just running around with straps

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by deanrw View Post
                Unless a guy holds all the belts, should they be considered a "world champ?" Only Usyk holds that distinction right now. Previously it was Bud.

                All these guys are mostly just running around with straps
                That's certainly another way to look at it.

                In an ideal world there would only be one belt.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by ShoulderRoll View Post
                  Not when there is a so called "super" champion who ranks above them at the same weight.
                  There's no such thing as a regular champion. The WBA world champion is the WBA world champion. If you find the WBA's world titles to be less desirable because they also have super titles, I agree with you. I personally stopped recognizing the WBA in 2001 when they introduced the super titles.

                  But it's not as simple as simply ignoring the world champion when there is also a super champion. Look at what happened to Machado. He's the WBA world champion. He was the world champion before there was a super champion. Because Mayweather is politically connected, he was able to have Gervonta Davis crowned super champion.

                  When that happens, does Machado stop being a world champion? Hardly seems fair. He wasn't stripped. He's still the WBA world champion.

                  The answer to the WBA problem isn't to ignore the WBA world champions in favor of the WBA super champions. That's been tried for 17 years. It hasn't worked. The only answer is to revoke the WBA's recognition entirely. And those of us wise enough to have never given the WBO recognition have been back to only having two world champions since 2001, and it's been pretty nice to be honest. The WBC is the most prestigious, the IBF is the most fair. The WBO should never have been recognized to begin with and the WBA's recognition should be withheld until every super title has been eliminated.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    trying to introduce boxing to new people can be confusing.
                    On paper, Dillian Whyte is a champion. There's like 60 something "champions" in boxing.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by WhatDisButtonDo View Post
                      trying to introduce boxing to new people can be confusing.
                      On paper, Dillian Whyte is a champion. There's like 60 something "champions" in boxing.
                      There are hundreds and hundreds of champions. No different than any other sport.

                      But there are four "world" champions, boxing's equivalent of the four grand slams in tennis or the majors in golf. Just explain it like that if somebody isn't familiar with boxing and is confused by there being four major titles.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP