BoxRec
It is currently 26 Dec 2014, 21:25

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: 25 Jan 2010, 17:21 

Joined: 19 Jun 2007, 14:35
Posts: 1988
Location: Dudelange, Luxembourg
Maybe they HAD... I just mean that BoxRec only has got two categories, "WBA Super World", and "WBA World", and Nobuo Nashiro has already the title "WBA World". And Nonito Donaire "interim WBA World". So, wouldn't it be logical to put Darchinyan into "WBA Super World", as he has got two titles? I know he's unified, just as Caballero, but Juan Manuel Márquez also has got two titles (WBA & WBO), and they call him "Super". They now gave Moreno the status of "Super Champion" (see: http://wbanews.com/artman/publish/news/ ... faja.shtml ) because of 5 defences. Sorry, I don't look through anymore... :(


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Jan 2010, 12:24 

Joined: 18 May 2008, 15:01
Posts: 471
Location: Berlin, Germany
claudevsq wrote:
They now gave Moreno the status of "Super Champion" (see: http://wbanews.com/artman/publish/news/Moreno_recibe_super_faja.shtml ) because of 5 defences.
Moreno has just won the honorary super belt, which does not affect his championship status. Otherwise no fight would have been ordered between Moreno and interim champion Cermeño, who would have been upgraded to full regular champion instead.

claudevsq wrote:
Reenthelawman wrote:
claudevsq wrote:
http://wbanews.com/artman/publish/campionshipSuperChampions/index.shtml

There, on the WBA page, you can see that "Super", "Unified" or "Undisputed Super" champions is all the same meaning. So, as Vic has got two titles, he should be moved to the "WBA Super World" category. Nashiro is already in the "WBA World" category, and there are no more categories, and there's also no need to create more...


Not to add fuel to the fire, but my understanding of that page is exactly the opposite of yours. The use of the precise terms seems to have meaning.
Maybe they HAD... I just mean that BoxRec only has got two categories, "WBA Super World", and "WBA World", and Nobuo Nashiro has already the title "WBA World". And Nonito Donaire "interim WBA World". So, wouldn't it be logical to put Darchinyan into "WBA Super World", as he has got two titles? I know he's unified, just as Caballero, but Juan Manuel Márquez also has got two titles (WBA & WBO), and they call him "Super".
I had provided a link to the same page a few posts above and argued that the terms are used interchangeably; at least I can't find any definitions of their respective uses on that page.

However, this former version of the wiki article on championship unification seconds the position that "unified", "undisputed", and "super" champions are distinguishable from each other. It says:

"- If the boxer holds the WBA title and one other title, he is recognized as the unified champion.
- If the boxer holds the WBA title and two other titles, he is recognized as the undisputed champion.
- If the boxer holds the WBA title and all three other titles, he is recognized as the super champion.
"

I even remember once discovering these definitions on the WBA site itself, but they have vanished since. Instead, page 11 of this document says, "The Association will recognize a World Champion as a Unified Champion when he is also recognized as world champion in a comparable weight class by one or more of the other sanctioning organizations." It also offers this vague statement: "In exceptional circumstances, the Championships Committee and the President may designate a Champion (other than an Interim Champion) as a Super Champion."

The analysis of the these WBA ratings has yielded the following results:

1. Until the June 2002 ratings and again from the July 2011 ratings onwards, nonregular champions are called "super champions" regardless of the number of titles they hold.

2. From the July 2002 ratings to the February 2003 ratings nonregular champions are called "unified champions" regardless of the number of titles they hold.

3. From the May-June 2003 ratings to the June 2011 ratings (the document containing the March-April 2003 ratings is unaccessible), champions who hold the WBA and one more major title are called unified champions. Champions who hold the WBA and two or three more major titles are called undisputed champions. Champions who are upgraded without holding another title and their successors are called super champions. Unified or undisputed champions who lose (all of) their other title(s) and their successors are called super champions thenceforth.

There are some exceptions though:

1. The ratings as of August 2010 show Vic Darchinyan (super flyweight), who only held the WBA title, to be a unified instead of a super champion.

2. Some ratings show champions who held the WBA and one more major title to be undisputed instead of unified champions:
- January 2004 until May 2004 Kostya Tszyu (super lightweight)
- June 2008 until August 2008 Joe Calzaghe (super middleweight)

3. Some ratings show champions who held the WBA and two more major titles to be unified instead of undisputed champions:
- November-December 2003 Cory Spinks (welterweight)
- March 2004 Ronald Wright (super welterweight)
- December 2005-January 2006 and February 2006 O'Neil Bell (cruiserweight)
- September 2007 Juan Diaz (lightweight)
- June 2011 Wladimir Klitschko (heavyweight)

4. With Silvio Branco/Paulus Moses holding the WBA regular light heavyweight/lightweight title Roy Jones Jr./Juan Manuel Marquez and Antonio Tarver/Juan Diaz were allowed to leapfrog him by competing for the vacant WBA super title (along with the vacant WBC/WBO title) in November 2003/February 2009. While Jones Jr. has been listed as unified champion, Marquez has been listed as super champion in the ratings following their respective wins.

What conclusions can be drawn from the above? Obviously, there are terms being used inconsistently. The question remains whether they all refer to the same title, whose respective designations are usually determined by the number of titles held by the champion. I'd say that as long as no active super, unified, or undisputed champions are recognized simultaneously they could well be treated as if all of them held the same title.

Anyway, as has been pointed out by claudevsq (see quote above), Darchinyan's super flyweight title is not the regular one, which is already occupied by Nashiro. The same applies to Caballero whose super bantamweight title fights with Molitor, Mathebula, and Leal were for (one of) the nonregular title(s).


Last edited by Emaster on 11 Jan 2012, 07:26, edited 7 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Feb 2010, 13:21 
Editor
Editor

Joined: 16 Sep 2003, 04:38
Posts: 3872
Location: Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
IMO, Darch is Interim Super World super flyweight champ


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Feb 2010, 14:43 

Joined: 19 Jun 2007, 14:35
Posts: 1988
Location: Dudelange, Luxembourg
Don't you have better things to do than being sarcastic? You know very well he's the green and black and gold unified emeritus champion in recess!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Feb 2010, 16:12 

Joined: 18 May 2008, 15:01
Posts: 471
Location: Berlin, Germany
In the not so distant future we may indeed get to know whether the terms "super", "unified", and "undisputed" all refer to the very same title (and mostly just indicate the number of other titles held) or whether each of them constitutes a title in its own right.

If plans materialize to match the WBA regular featherweight champion Yuriorkis Gamboa with the WBO featherweight champion Juan Lopez with both titles being at stake, the winner would probably become the unified champion while Chris John would still be recognized as the super champion. The regular title would become vacant. If the unified champion then decided to meet, say, the WBC champion, he would become the undisputed champion leaving the spot of the unified champion vacant. The vacancy could easily be filled if the new regular champion met the IBF champion with the winner gaining recognition as the new unified champion. As a result, the regular title would again become vacant. Its next holder might endure a stretch of inactivity and understandibly be declared champion in recess so that the vacant "active" regular championship would have to find yet another owner. Add an interim regular champion for good measure and we'll be equipped with six WBA featherweight champions:

- a super champion
- a unified champion
- an undisputed champion
- a regular champion in recess
- an "active" regular champion
- an interim regular champion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Feb 2010, 07:00 

Joined: 19 Jun 2007, 14:35
Posts: 1988
Location: Dudelange, Luxembourg
:OhYes:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Feb 2010, 14:50 
Editor
Editor

Joined: 16 Sep 2003, 04:38
Posts: 3872
Location: Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
Don't laugh Claudie....WBA titles is serious Business :D
Darch vs. Choc (Mundine) for catchweight 'Diamond' belt is only hop, skip & jump away


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Feb 2010, 11:02 

Joined: 18 May 2008, 15:01
Posts: 471
Location: Berlin, Germany
claudevsq wrote:
By the way, I see you came to reason (or someone else), you have Darchinyan now defending his "WBA Super World" and WBC titles on March 6... :TU:
But the entry on his most recent fight against Rojas still shows the regular title as having been at stake although the same number of belts was on the line as will be in his upcoming fight.

The evidence presented in this thread leads me to conclude that all nonregular titles should be called "super titles" as long as the situation has not occurred that two or more nonregular champions are recognized at the same time.


Last edited by Emaster on 14 Jan 2011, 09:49, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Feb 2010, 12:29 

Joined: 19 Jun 2007, 14:35
Posts: 1988
Location: Dudelange, Luxembourg
I think and hope so, because you are absolutely right...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Feb 2010, 18:26 
Editor
Editor

Joined: 16 Sep 2003, 04:38
Posts: 3872
Location: Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
Recently I called 6 people in the industry & asked whether Darch was WBA's super, unified or regular champ?
None could tell me, nor did they care.
4 simply said he was WBA & WBC champ


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Feb 2010, 04:43 
Editor
Editor

Joined: 16 Sep 2003, 04:38
Posts: 3872
Location: Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
Can't wait for Nashiro to unify, so WBA can have 2 SUPER champs :lol: :lol:
Which will then elevate Donaire to full World status, and then also unify to make it 3 SUPER champs :lol: :lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Feb 2010, 10:37 

Joined: 19 Jun 2007, 14:35
Posts: 1988
Location: Dudelange, Luxembourg
Nashiro will fight Cazares again next, because they drew in their last match. Cazares is rated #1, and there will be a purse bid Monday for Nashiro-Cazares and 3 other fights, such as Jones-Brudov (long overdue).
So, Darch is unified or super champ, Nashiro is regular, and Donaire is interim.
Seriously, don't make it worse than it already is... :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Feb 2010, 13:18 

Joined: 18 May 2008, 15:01
Posts: 471
Location: Berlin, Germany
Emaster wrote:
claudevsq wrote:
By the way, I see you came to reason (or someone else), you have Darchinyan now defending his "WBA Super World" and WBC titles on March 6... :TU:
But the entry on his most recent fight against Rojas still shows the regular title as having been at stake although the same number of belts was on the line as will be in his upcoming fight.
Now the super title is recorded as at stake in Darchinyan's fight with Rojas and in Caballero's latest three fights as well.

Emaster wrote:
The entry for the WBA Ordinary World title on the title search page still needs erasing.


Last edited by Emaster on 14 Jan 2011, 09:52, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Feb 2010, 13:59 

Joined: 19 Jun 2007, 14:35
Posts: 1988
Location: Dudelange, Luxembourg
Correct, as it is empty also...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Feb 2010, 17:09 
Editor
Editor

Joined: 16 Sep 2003, 04:38
Posts: 3872
Location: Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
We inserted Ordinary as a joke, but left it in the system in case we may need it :D

Personally, other than Interim champ, we should class all of them as World & in brackets insert whether Super, or Unified.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Feb 2010, 17:26 

Joined: 19 Jun 2007, 14:35
Posts: 1988
Location: Dudelange, Luxembourg
Won't you start... :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Feb 2010, 17:43 
Editor
Editor

Joined: 16 Sep 2003, 04:38
Posts: 3872
Location: Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
What if G junior lands on his head, comes to his senses & decides to ditch all the crap?
What do we do then?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Feb 2010, 10:10 

Joined: 19 Jun 2007, 14:35
Posts: 1988
Location: Dudelange, Luxembourg
Good question, Toney me boy...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Jan 2011, 10:17 

Joined: 18 May 2008, 15:01
Posts: 471
Location: Berlin, Germany
Emaster wrote:
I'd say that as long as no active super, unified, or undisputed champions are recognized simultaneously they could well be treated as if all of them held the same title.
Emaster wrote:
The evidence presented in this thread leads me to conclude that all nonregular titles should be called "super titles" as long as the situation has not occurred that two or more nonregular champions are recognized at the same time.
Now that both Chris John and Yuriorkis Gamboa hold versions of the nonregular WBA featherweight title at the same time, John the super championship and Gamboa the unified championship, differentiating between super, unified and undisputed champions seems to be inevitable.

First, John had been declared super champion in recess so that one could argue that Gamboa, following his successful WBA/IBF unification match, just occupied the active spot of the super championship.

An analogous situation had occurred when then-WBA heavyweight champion Ruslan Chagaev was declared (regular) champion in recess with Nikolay Valuev capturing the status of active (regular) champion. Chagaev was still listed as champion in recess after gaining another defense of his portion of the title because Valuev continued to hold the status of "active" champion.

But after John returned to the ring and defended his title successfully, he was no longer listed as "in recess" so that he and Gamboa cannot be distinguished by the status in which they hold their respective portions of the title any more.

Thus, specifying super, unified, and undisputed title holders as such instead of using the generic super championship for all of them seems to be pertinent and has been suggested before:
AntonS wrote:
Personally, other than Interim champ, we should class all of them as World & in brackets insert whether Super, or Unified.
Reenthelawman wrote:
The use of the precise terms seems to have meaning.
The problem is the inconsistent use of the terms by the WBA itself, which has changed over the years and has partially been applied erroneously as well as has been pointed out before:
Emaster wrote:
1. Until the June 2002 ratings and again from the July 2011 ratings onwards, nonregular champions are called "super champions" regardless of the number of titles they hold.

2. From the July 2002 ratings to the February 2003 ratings nonregular champions are called "unified champions" regardless of the number of titles they hold.

3. From the May-June 2003 ratings to the June 2011 ratings (the document containing the March-April 2003 ratings is unaccessible), champions who hold the WBA and one more major title are called unified champions. Champions who hold the WBA and two or three more major titles are called undisputed champions. Champions who are upgraded without holding another title and their successors are called super champions. Unified or undisputed champions who lose (all of) their other title(s) and their successors are called super champions thenceforth.

There are some exceptions though:

1. The ratings as of August 2010 show Vic Darchinyan (super flyweight), who only held the WBA title, to be a unified instead of a super champion.

2. Some ratings show champions who held the WBA and one more major title to be undisputed instead of unified champions:
- January 2004 until May 2004 Kostya Tszyu (super lightweight)
- June 2008 until August 2008 Joe Calzaghe (super middleweight)

3. Some ratings show champions who held the WBA and two more major titles to be unified instead of undisputed champions:
- November-December 2003 Cory Spinks (welterweight)
- March 2004 Ronald Wright (super welterweight)
- December 2005-January 2006 and February 2006 O'Neil Bell (cruiserweight)
- September 2007 Juan Diaz (lightweight)
- June 2011 Wladimir Klitschko (heavyweight)

4. With Silvio Branco/Paulus Moses holding the WBA regular light heavyweight/lightweight title Roy Jones Jr./Juan Manuel Marquez and Antonio Tarver/Juan Diaz were allowed to leapfrog him by competing for the vacant WBA super title (along with the vacant WBC/WBO title) in November 2003/February 2009. While Jones Jr. has been listed as unified champion, Marquez has been listed as super champion in the ratings following their respective wins.
Should BoxRec reflect the WBA's inconsistencies or iron them out?


Last edited by Emaster on 11 Jan 2012, 07:31, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Jan 2011, 13:17 

Joined: 19 Jun 2007, 14:35
Posts: 1988
Location: Dudelange, Luxembourg
The John/Gamboa situation is an interesting one indeed: I think, not to create too much titles, we should (I think it was Anton who said this) call all non-regular champs super champion and, in brackets, name unified, undisputed or whatever... For that, two cases may be created, just like the vacant/interim cases: unified (for 2) and undisputed (for 3 resp. 4 titles). But then again, the WBO also has got two interim champions at light flyweight for the moment, but they will fight each other on February 5, thank God...

Of course, we could also just let it be like it is, calling all non-regular champions "Super". :witzend:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Dec 2011, 20:25 

Joined: 18 May 2008, 15:01
Posts: 471
Location: Berlin, Germany
As Yuriorkis Gamboa skipped the mandatory reweigh-in for his fight with Jorge Solis on March 26, 2011, he was stripped of his IBF featherweight title, which as a result was at stake for Solis only. As Gamboa won the fight, the IBF title remained vacant while Gamboa successfully defended his WBA title.

Gamboa's status as champion was, however, labeled "under review" in the ratings as of March and April 2011 with the ratings as of May 2011 not listing him as champion any more. Why was he stripped of his WBA title?

"Because he was no longer a unified champion, he couldn't wear the "super champion" title," according to this article.

Gamboa could have been called WBA super champion instead of WBA unified champion just like Celestino Caballero was after being stripped of his IBF super bantamweight title if Chris John had not already been the WBA super champion at featherweight:
Emaster wrote:
Now that both Chris John and Yuriorkis Gamboa hold versions of the nonregular WBA featherweight title at the same time, John the super championship and Gamboa the unified championship, differentiating between super, unified and undisputed champions seems to be inevitable.
While the WBA was open to recognizing at least two nonregular champions in the same weight class simultaneously, those champions apparently had to be distinguishable by the number of non-WBA titles they held. After Gamboa lost the IBF title, he only held the WBA title just as Chris John did, an situation deemed unsustainable.

The question arises as of which date Gamboa lost his WBA title. While the logic which was finally applied by the WBA themselves would have dictated Gamboa being stripped of the title the moment he had to forgo the IBF belt, his fight with Solis was announced as a WBA title fight and thus has to be considered his last successful defense unless this fact was changed retroactively. However, only the May ratings, which were published on June 10, 2011, do not show him to be the WBA titlist any more.

And if Gamboa's fight with Solis is indeed to be deemed his final successful defense of the WBA title, how should the title he still held be called? Gamboa wasn't unified champion any more while John was holding the super championship.

This case shows that distinguishing between different kinds of the WBA nonregular title is hardly feasible so that all super, unified and undisputed champions should just be termed "super champions."
claudevsq wrote:
Of course, we could also just let it be like it is, calling all non-regular champions "Super". :witzend:

The fact that all nonregular champions have been called super champions since the ratings as of July 2011 may indicate that the WBA has determined not to recognize more than one nonregular champion per weight class at once any more.
Emaster wrote:
1. Until the June 2002 ratings and again from the July 2011 ratings onwards, nonregular champions are called "super champions" regardless of the number of titles they hold.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: