Why not Lucas Browne vs Luis Ortiz. . .
Why not Lucas Browne vs Luis Ortiz. . .
. . . for the vacant WBA Heavyweight title?. . . .the new champ faces a mandatory of Ustinov-Oquendo winner. . . . Simple..
-
Killer Blow
- Welterweight
- Posts: 513
- Joined: 01 May 2016, 05:07
-
Enlightened-One
- Super Lightweight
- Posts: 14618
- Joined: 19 Jul 2016, 05:12
Re: Why not Lucas Browne vs Luis Ortiz. . .
Klitschko is rated above Browne and he's only carrying a slight knock.
Re: Why not Lucas Browne vs Luis Ortiz. . .
Carrying a slight knock?Enlightened-One wrote:Klitschko is rated above Browne and he's only carrying a slight knock.
-
Enlightened-One
- Super Lightweight
- Posts: 14618
- Joined: 19 Jul 2016, 05:12
Re: Why not Lucas Browne vs Luis Ortiz. . .
http://www.espn.com/boxing/story/_/id/1 ... arch-aprilBadhusker wrote:Carrying a slight knock?Enlightened-One wrote:Klitschko is rated above Browne and he's only carrying a slight knock.
http://es.pn/2dQmbH3
Re: Why not Lucas Browne vs Luis Ortiz. . .
Enlightened-One wrote:http://www.espn.com/boxing/story/_/id/1 ... arch-aprilBadhusker wrote:Carrying a slight knock?Enlightened-One wrote:Klitschko is rated above Browne and he's only carrying a slight knock.
http://es.pn/2dQmbH3
Don't answer my question with two fornicating links to read...or don't bother. I asked a simple question. Maybe it is a common term from wherever you are from, but not in the U.S.
-
Enlightened-One
- Super Lightweight
- Posts: 14618
- Joined: 19 Jul 2016, 05:12
Re: Why not Lucas Browne vs Luis Ortiz. . .
He's got a pulled muscle on his calf that was slight enough where he could have potentially fought on the 10th December.Badhusker wrote:Enlightened-One wrote:http://www.espn.com/boxing/story/_/id/1 ... arch-aprilBadhusker wrote:
Carrying a slight knock?
http://es.pn/2dQmbH3
Don't answer my question with two effing links to read...or don't bother. I asked a simple question. Maybe it is a common term from wherever you are from, but not in the U.S.
-
Like a Boss
- Light Heavyweight
- Posts: 5863
- Joined: 01 May 2012, 03:21
Re: Why not Lucas Browne vs Luis Ortiz. . .
Oquendo has first call on fighting for the WBA regular title.
Re: Why not Lucas Browne vs Luis Ortiz. . .
Browne wants to make some good money (understandably) - he's not going to make that fighting Ortiz- that aside from the fact Ortiz would very likely knock him out.
Re: Why not Lucas Browne vs Luis Ortiz. . .
It would make too much sense to have Browne vs Ortiz.
-
Like a Boss
- Light Heavyweight
- Posts: 5863
- Joined: 01 May 2012, 03:21
Re: Why not Lucas Browne vs Luis Ortiz. . .
The WBA gave Browne and Oquendo 30 days to get a fight set for the regular title back in the first week of September.
That was about 50 days ago and not a word.
That was about 50 days ago and not a word.
Re: Why not Lucas Browne vs Luis Ortiz. . .
Browne was tied up with the legality of his controversial victory over Chagaev.Like a Boss wrote:The WBA gave Browne and Oquendo 30 days to get a fight set for the regular title back in the first week of September.
That was about 50 days ago and not a word.
His A sample came back as positive, but his B sample came back as negative.
Re: Why not Lucas Browne vs Luis Ortiz. . .
With David Haye being the mandatory challenger for the winner...Like a Boss wrote:Oquendo has first call on fighting for the WBA regular title.
-
Like a Boss
- Light Heavyweight
- Posts: 5863
- Joined: 01 May 2012, 03:21
Re: Why not Lucas Browne vs Luis Ortiz. . .
Not the way it happened actually.Crease wrote:Browne was tied up with the legality of his controversial victory over Chagaev.Like a Boss wrote:The WBA gave Browne and Oquendo 30 days to get a fight set for the regular title back in the first week of September.
That was about 50 days ago and not a word.
His A sample came back as positive, but his B sample came back as negative.
A pre-fight test showed a negative result for Browne. So he was found to be clean.
A second test, post fight, showed a positive result. I don't think Browne even pursued the B sample from the second test.
Re: Why not Lucas Browne vs Luis Ortiz. . .
Yeah but Browne won a shot of the title in court.Enlightened-One wrote:Klitschko is rated above Browne and he's only carrying a slight knock.
-
asdfjkl
- Heavyweight

Re: Why not Lucas Browne vs Luis Ortiz. . .
Ortiz is busy, I guess AJ vs Browne is the best option left.
-
Enlightened-One
- Super Lightweight
- Posts: 14618
- Joined: 19 Jul 2016, 05:12
Re: Why not Lucas Browne vs Luis Ortiz. . .
A shot at their "regular" title, the one he used to hold, not Fury's old "super" title. However, the WBA subsequently announced their intention to banish the lightly-regarded "regular" strap. So anything goes in this scenario, depending on the WBA's legal liability to fulfil Browne's compensation.BitPlayer wrote:Yeah but Browne won a shot of the title in court.Enlightened-One wrote:Klitschko is rated above Browne and he's only carrying a slight knock.
-
Killer Blow
- Welterweight
- Posts: 513
- Joined: 01 May 2016, 05:07
Re: Why not Lucas Browne vs Luis Ortiz. . .
He's not busy. He's pencilled in for December 10. He's available for the WBA strap.asdfjkl wrote:Ortiz is busy, I guess AJ vs Browne is the best option left.
Re: Why not Lucas Browne vs Luis Ortiz. . .
Klitschko is reported to have pulled up lame. Super titles are only when two organisation belts are held by the same fighter.Enlightened-One wrote:A shot at their "regular" title, the one he used to hold, not Fury's old "super" title. However, the WBA subsequently announced their intention to banish the lightly-regarded "regular" strap. So anything goes in this scenario, depending on the WBA's legal liability to fulfil Browne's compensation.BitPlayer wrote:Yeah but Browne won a shot of the title in court.Enlightened-One wrote:Klitschko is rated above Browne and he's only carrying a slight knock.
-
Enlightened-One
- Super Lightweight
- Posts: 14618
- Joined: 19 Jul 2016, 05:12
Re: Why not Lucas Browne vs Luis Ortiz. . .
You're absolutely correct, but someone named a fighter last week that held that status without having held multiple belts (Felix Sturm and Jezreel Corrales I think), which I accept is a very remote exception to the general rule. So I'm probably wrong about my assumption that Klitschko would be granted a shot at the WBA title before Browne because of his higher ranking.Brute wrote:Klitschko is reported to have pulled up lame. Super titles are only when two organisation belts are held by the same fighter.Enlightened-One wrote:A shot at their "regular" title, the one he used to hold, not Fury's old "super" title. However, the WBA subsequently announced their intention to banish the lightly-regarded "regular" strap. So anything goes in this scenario, depending on the WBA's legal liability to fulfil Browne's compensation.BitPlayer wrote: Yeah but Browne won a shot of the title in court.
Re: Why not Lucas Browne vs Luis Ortiz. . .
In most divisions the WBA has only the "regular"world champion, although some years back it managed to have 2 or 3 featherweight super world champions at onc.Enlightened-One wrote:A shot at their "regular" title, the one he used to hold, not Fury's old "super" title. However, the WBA subsequently announced their intention to banish the lightly-regarded "regular" strap. So anything goes in this scenario, depending on the WBA's legal liability to fulfil Browne's compensation.BitPlayer wrote:Yeah but Browne won a shot of the title in court.Enlightened-One wrote:Klitschko is rated above Browne and he's only carrying a slight knock.
Must have been hard up for licencing fees.
-
Enlightened-One
- Super Lightweight
- Posts: 14618
- Joined: 19 Jul 2016, 05:12
Re: Why not Lucas Browne vs Luis Ortiz. . .
Up until a few weeks ago, the WBA had champions holding various titles, such as their: “Unified”; “Super”; “Undisputed”; “Regular”; and their “Interim” champions.Brute wrote:In most divisions the WBA has only the "regular"world champion, although some years back it managed to have 2 or 3 featherweight super world champions at onc.Enlightened-One wrote:A shot at their "regular" title, the one he used to hold, not Fury's old "super" title. However, the WBA subsequently announced their intention to banish the lightly-regarded "regular" strap. So anything goes in this scenario, depending on the WBA's legal liability to fulfil Browne's compensation.BitPlayer wrote: Yeah but Browne won a shot of the title in court.
Must have been hard up for licencing fees.
-
asdfjkl
- Heavyweight

Re: Why not Lucas Browne vs Luis Ortiz. . .
Ah, I didn't realise he planned two fights before the end of this year. I'd love to see an Ortiz AJ fight then.Killer Blow wrote:He's not busy. He's pencilled in for December 10. He's available for the WBA strap.asdfjkl wrote:Ortiz is busy, I guess AJ vs Browne is the best option left.
-
Killer Blow
- Welterweight
- Posts: 513
- Joined: 01 May 2016, 05:07
Re: Why not Lucas Browne vs Luis Ortiz. . .
No chance. It will happen next summer at the earliest, if it happens at all.asdfjkl wrote:Ah, I didn't realise he planned two fights before the end of this year. I'd love to see an Ortiz AJ fight then.Killer Blow wrote:He's not busy. He's pencilled in for December 10. He's available for the WBA strap.asdfjkl wrote:Ortiz is busy, I guess AJ vs Browne is the best option left.
Re: Why not Lucas Browne vs Luis Ortiz. . .
Does anyone else just wish the WBA would fvck off?