Does anyone know why the WBA makes these ridiculous decisions?
Why they have boxers who are not really top 25 contenders any more fight for world titles?
Absolute idiots. Talk about getting rid of titles. Already having trouble making the Briggs-Oquendo fight.Freedom2013 wrote:http://www.BS.com/manuel-charr ... nn--113647
Does anyone know why the WBA makes these ridiculous decisions?![]()
Why they have boxers who are not really top 25 contenders any more fight for world titles?
When two fighters compete for the vacant WBA interim title, isn’t that simply their equivalent of a title eliminator, whereby the winner isn’t an actual world champion, instead they’re simply the mandatory to the “real” titleholder?Freedom2013 wrote:Does anyone know why the WBA makes these ridiculous decisions?![]()
Enlightened-One wrote:When two fighters compete for the vacant WBA interim title, isn’t that simply their equivalent of a title eliminator, whereby the winner isn’t an actual world champion, instead they’re simply the mandatory to the “real” titleholder?Freedom2013 wrote:Does anyone know why the WBA makes these ridiculous decisions?![]()
Doesn't all of the sports governing bodies occassionally have interim world champions? Also, hasn't fighters like Deontay Wilder and Adonis Stevenson failed to perform a mandatory defence of their WBC titles in more than two years even though contenders in their weight classes have engaged in title eliminators?Ruthless-RKO wrote:The Interim title is their eliminator, but they call it a world title which is annoying. Also holding the Interim title, they don't fight the regular champion until after 2 years, where as if you are a mandatory, you're next in line.Enlightened-One wrote:When two fighters compete for the vacant WBA interim title, isn’t that simply their equivalent of a title eliminator, whereby the winner isn’t an actual world champion, instead they’re simply the mandatory to the “real” titleholder?Freedom2013 wrote:Does anyone know why the WBA makes these ridiculous decisions?![]()
Yes, but you've hit the nail on the head though with your explanation. WBC have title eliminators, they wouldn't always always have them for the Interim title, the case for Povetkin vs. Stiverne makes sense as to why it's for the Interim title, same as Huck vs. Breidis. But WBA just take the piss, having it for the Interim title, it gets them more sanctioning fees.Enlightened-One wrote:Doesn't all of the sports governing bodies occassionally have interim world champions? Also, hasn't fighters like Deontay Wilder and Adonis Stevenson failed to perform a mandatory defence of their WBC titles in more than two years even though contenders in their weight classes have engaged in title eliminators?Ruthless-RKO wrote:The Interim title is their eliminator, but they call it a world title which is annoying. Also holding the Interim title, they don't fight the regular champion until after 2 years, where as if you are a mandatory, you're next in line.Enlightened-One wrote: When two fighters compete for the vacant WBA interim title, isn’t that simply their equivalent of a title eliminator, whereby the winner isn’t an actual world champion, instead they’re simply the mandatory to the “real” titleholder?
The WBA charge each fighter a 3% sanctioning fee for interim world title fights.Ruthless-RKO wrote:Yes, but you've hit the nail on the head though with your explanation. WBC have title eliminators, they wouldn't always always have them for the Interim title, the case for Povetkin vs. Stiverne makes sense as to why it's for the Interim title, same as Huck vs. Breidis. But WBA just take the piss, having it for the Interim title, it gets them more sanctioning fees.Enlightened-One wrote:Doesn't all of the sports governing bodies occassionally have interim world champions? Also, hasn't fighters like Deontay Wilder and Adonis Stevenson failed to perform a mandatory defence of their WBC titles in more than two years even though contenders in their weight classes have engaged in title eliminators?Ruthless-RKO wrote: The Interim title is their eliminator, but they call it a world title which is annoying. Also holding the Interim title, they don't fight the regular champion until after 2 years, where as if you are a mandatory, you're next in line.
WBC created the Silver title to kind of drift away from interim.
I’m not so sure… the IBF have been guilty of making questionable decisions in the past, such as stripping Tyson Fury of his title immediately after he captured it, because they wanted him to fight Vyacheslav Glazkov instead of engaging in a rematch against Wladimir Klitschko… and this ultimately led to the appalling Charles Martin enjoying a world championship reign, one of the very worst champions in heavyweight history.SaadOffTheDeck wrote:The ibf is the 'best' by a wide margin. They strictly adhere to their rules without bias for celebrity.
Learn to read.SaadOffTheDeck wrote:You just solidified my point. Thanks dork.