WBA: not reducing world titles anymore?

[T.M.K]

Jan 2017 Interview: https://www.BS.com/wba-presid ... e--112843

"It is not easy to clean house, but we are doing everything possible. There was recently an interim-title approved for Argentine Brian Castano, but this was a long-standing agreement and it was my duty to comply. However, it's the last one we're going to do," Mendoza said.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBYx8hishpo more drivel (from end of 2016)


We finally got down to just 2 Interim champions remaining, but now the WBA have scheduled both an Interim Bantamweight and Super-Welterweight title: Bantamweight already has a Super-world (Burnett) and World (McDonnell) champion, as does Supor-Welter (Lara and Castano).

Just as they got to as many as 10 divisions with only a single world champion: the number are creeping up again, and with various Super and Regular titles being invented with divisions that were down to one champ, we're now looking at only 6 divisions being how they should be.




Can anyone get a link to Mr Mendoza and interview him as to what's happening?


Cheers

"T.M.K" / Col

[halfamill]

They were but looks that they are regretting that. This is a list of titles that the WBA are adding despite a champion already existing in that division.

Cuellar vs Davis at 130
Soro vs Vera at 154
Arsen vs Merhy at 200
Canizalez vs Reiya at 108
Oquendo vs Charr at heavyweight

[ElJefe]

Remember this

[Like a Boss]

Remember this

It didn't take long for that plan to crash and burn.

[tiny_acres]

Remember this

As I have said for years all of the alphabet groups suck. But the WBA swallows

[Ilya Muromets]

"WBA: not reducing world titles anymore?"

Huh?

[jamamb]

if they really are demoting machado to regular champ and making davis-cuellar for the super champsionship at 130 theyve actually stepped up there shadyness

[the_doctor]

I will never understand why an "Interim" Champion is needed when there are already not one but two Champions.

Also that WBA Heavyweight thing is amazing. Browne wins, fails a drugs test. Fury wins then retires. Ortiz/Ustinov never happens. Then to top it all off, Oquendo, who hadn't beaten a ranked fighter since June 2014, gets to skip the first round all together.

On that subject, why are the WBA so obsessed with Oquendo?

[candyslim]

They have been reducing World Titles for years ... usually to a laughing stock.

They make the WBC look like a semi-legitimate enterprise. Well, comparatively anyway - I didn't mean to go overboard.

[LeeSanders]

fornicating Mendoza!

[Enlightened-One]

WBA: not reducing world titles anymore?

Just as they got to as many as 10 divisions with only a single world champion: the number are creeping up again...

Whilst I’m clearly no fan of the WBA, it’s obviously important to formulate an opinion based on a thorough appreciation of all the facts, so here goes…

The WBA actually reiterated their intention to continue trying to reduce the amount of world title belts – they didn’t say in any of the articles that you quoted that they have stopped making an effort to do so.

Also, the precise same discussion took place on a separate thread that is only a week old… in which I not only detailed my own opinion on the matter, but I also supplied the facts: "WBA = Absolute T!ts"

On the 20th January, 2016, ESPN published an article claiming that the WBA were actively working on reducing the amount of world titleholders.

At that moment in time, 41 men held belts of various types (i.e. super, regular, unified and interim):

• Heavyweight: Tyson Fury; Ruslan Chagaev; Luis Ortiz
• Cruiserweight: Denis Lebedev; Beibut Shumenov
• Light heavyweight: Sergey Kovalev; Juergen Braehmer; Felix Valera
• Super middleweight: Fedor Chudinov; Giovanni De Carolis
• Middleweight: Gennady Golovkin; Daniel Jacobs; Alfonso Blanco
• Super welterweight: Erislandy Lara; Jack Culcay
• Welterweight: Keith Thurman; David Avanesyan
• Super lightweight: Adrien Broner; Jose Benavidez
• Lightweight: Anthony Crolla; Ismael Barroso
• Super featherweight: Takashi Uchiyama; Javier Fortuna; Jezreel Corrales
• Featherweight: Leo Santa Cruz; Jesus Andres Cuellar; Carlos Zambrano
• Super bantamweight: Scott Quigg; Moises Flores
• Bantamweight: Juan Carlos Payano; Jamie Mcdonnell; Zhanat Zhakiyanov
• Super flyweight: Kohei Kono; Luis Concepcion
• Flyweight: Juan Francisco Estrada; Kazuto Ioka; Yutthana Kaensa
• Light flyweight: Ryoichi Taguchi; Randy Petalcorin
• Minimumweight: Hekkie Budler; Thammanoon Niyomtrong

According to the same WBA website, as of February 2018, there are only 25 titleholders from their list of seventeen weight-classes, with Featherweight considered the “worst” division (i.e. super = Leo Santa Cruz; regular = Abner Mares; and interim = Jesus Rojas):

• Heavyweight: Anthony Joshua; Manuel Charr
• Cruiserweight: Murat Gassiev
• Light heavyweight: Dmitry Bivol
• Super middleweight: George Groves; Tyron Zeuge
• Middleweight: Gennady Golovkin; Ryota Murata
• Super welterweight: Erislandy Lara; Brian Carlos Castano
• Welterweight: Keith Thurman; Lucas Martin Matthysse
• Lightweight: Jorge Linares
• Super featherweight: Alberto Machado
• Featherweight: Leo Santa Cruz; Abner Mares; Jesus M Rojas
• Super bantamweight: Daniel Roman; Moises Flores
• Bantamweight: Ryan Burnett; Jamie Mcdonnell
• Super flyweight: Khalid Yafai
• Flyweight: Artem Dalakian
• Light flyweight: Ryoichi Taguchi
• Minimumweight: Thammanoon Niyomtrong

There used to be sixteen interim titleholders in January 2016, but now there are only two. Unfortunately, there is currently only one fewer “regular” champion than there was over the equivalent time frame.

Overall though, the situation has clearly improved significantly and no one can possibly deny that, but it’s also clear that WBA have failed to meet the expectations of fight fans.

They make the WBC look like a semi-legitimate enterprise. Well, comparatively anyway - I didn't mean to go overboard.

In the same post as the above quote, I stated my belief that this wasn't true.

That being said, the WBC probably have more so-called "champions" than the WBA currently has, but they have named their secondary titles differently (i.e. emeritus, diamond, silver etc.), so they shouldn't be immune from receiving criticism.

[Ruthless-RKO]

On that subject, why are the WBA so obsessed with Oquendo?

Oquendo won a courtcase after he lost to Chagaev.. WBA legally owe him a world title fight.

[Oiky]

Lemons

[RScarf1]

This Friday, Stephon Young (No. 43 BoxRec) vs. Reymart Gaballo (No. 72 BoxRec) for interim WBA bantamweight title. It doesn't seem like the WBA is reducing the amount of their titles.

[Ilya Muromets]

They have been reducing World Titles for years ... usually to a laughing stock.

They make the WBC look like a semi-legitimate enterprise. Well, comparatively anyway - I didn't mean to go overboard.

Yep.

WBA world heavyweight champion: Manuel Charr (they've got a separate title for Joshua).

Actually i think it would be politically correct - in keeping with common core no child left behind everybody is the same egalitarianism - to declare everybody a world champion!

http://www.wbaboxing.com/wba-champions#.WrQzf_llCf1

[candyslim]

That must the plan "Failure is not an option"

EO when I said about the WBC being the better (in the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king) I didn't mean that they had fewer titles necessarily, I did a comparison of the various alphabet orgs' heavyweight rankings a few weeks ago and started a thread on it (Rating the ratings I think I called it) and apart from the inexcusably shameful example of politics and cronyism in maintaining Stiverne as mandatory-for-life, or so it seemed, the rest of their top 15 was really quite respectable, whereas those of the WBA would cause anyone associated with them who had any integrity, unlikely as that may be, to fear they might die of shame.

I'm not just basing my judgement on the ratings either but the ratings are a highly visible billboard for each of the governing bodies.

I decided the WBA were a festering pile of shite back in the early seventies so when you say they failed to meet the fans' expectations, all I can say is that they have rarely failed to meet mine

[Crease]

The WBA need to stop making commitments to fighters when ordering bouts. That way, it will prohibit the victor from saying to them "you owe me a title shot".

It's all too commonplace.

[Enlightened-One]

EO when I said about the WBC being the better (in the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king) I didn't mean that they had fewer titles necessarily, I did a comparison of the various alphabet orgs' heavyweight rankings a few weeks ago and started a thread on it (Rating the ratings I think I called it) and apart from the inexcusably shameful example of politics and cronyism in maintaining Stiverne as mandatory-for-life, or so it seemed, the rest of their top 15 was really quite respectable, whereas those of the WBA would cause anyone associated with them who had any integrity, unlikely as that may be, to fear they might die of shame.

I'm not just basing my judgement on the ratings either but the ratings are a highly visible billboard for each of the governing bodies.

I decided the WBA were a festering pile of shite back in the early seventies so when you say they failed to meet the fans' expectations, all I can say is that they have rarely failed to meet mine

My comments in relation to the WBA were in the context of the amount of so-called “champions” that they have (as per the thread title).

I haven’t defended them, but I do recognise that it is a statistical fact (that no one can deny) that they have significantly reduced the amount of titleholders, though they clearly haven’t gone far enough, since they're failing to meet the expectations of most fight fans.

The reason why I mentioned the WBC, is because they seem to regularly escape criticism… and for some strange reason, no one seems to pay attention to the amount of belts they dish out, despite the following lists being rather lengthy…

Here's a list of the WBC's "Emeritus" champions:

• Vitali Klitschko
• Tony Bellew
• Floyd Mayweather [Twice Over - 147lbs & 154lbs]

Here's a list of the WBC's "Diamond" champions:

• Sergey Kovalev
• Callum Smith
• Mikey Garcia
• Jorge Linares
• Leo Santa Cruz

Here's a list of the WBC's "Silver" champions:

• Dillian Whyte
• Maxim Vlasov
• Roberto Garcia
• Kell Brook
• Josh Taylor
• Jon Fernandez
• Nonito Donaire
• Julio Ceja
• Nordine Ouabaali
• Mcwilliams Arroyo
• Gilberto Parra

Here's a list of the WBC's "International" champions:

• Constantin Bejenaru
• Avni Yildirim
• Karim Achour
• Ismail Iiiev
• Thulani Mbenge
• Champion
• Hurricane Futa
• Bekman Soylybayev
• Gavin Mcdonnell
• Duke Micah
• Vacant
• Jonathan Inguito Taconing
• Deejay Kriel

I rarely formulate an opinion without researching my claims, but it really does amaze me to see other people harshly criticising the WBA, but somehow remain strangely mute on the WBC’s practices, despite the behaviour of both organisations being very similar in nature!

[klitoris]

The WBA is not reducing anything. If they really wanted to reduce their titles they would vote to change their bylaws to state that there is only one champion.

They have not done this.

By "reducing" all that Mendoza meant was to force the mandotories so that their Super, Regular and Interim champions fight each other.
That doesn't however mean that once their champions fight each other and have one champion left, they won't then make new "Regular" and "Interim" champions.
And this is exactly what they are doing.

And so anyone who actually thought that the WBA were reducing their champions simply did not understand that there actually was no wba law change, and that all they were doing is just forcing their mandatories. This is because one of the reasons WBA was and is a laughing stock is because they never force the Super champ to any mansatories. Floyd is a perfect example who owned two wba belts and probably never had a mandatory in his life.

[Joe Boxer]

They have been reducing World Titles for years ... usually to a laughing stock.

Good one!

[Deleted_Scenes]

EO when I said about the WBC being the better (in the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king) I didn't mean that they had fewer titles necessarily, I did a comparison of the various alphabet orgs' heavyweight rankings a few weeks ago and started a thread on it (Rating the ratings I think I called it) and apart from the inexcusably shameful example of politics and cronyism in maintaining Stiverne as mandatory-for-life, or so it seemed, the rest of their top 15 was really quite respectable, whereas those of the WBA would cause anyone associated with them who had any integrity, unlikely as that may be, to fear they might die of shame.

I'm not just basing my judgement on the ratings either but the ratings are a highly visible billboard for each of the governing bodies.

I decided the WBA were a festering pile of shite back in the early seventies so when you say they failed to meet the fans' expectations, all I can say is that they have rarely failed to meet mine

My comments in relation to the WBA were in the context of the amount of so-called “champions” that they have (as per the thread title).

I haven’t defended them, but I do recognise that it is a statistical fact (that no one can deny) that they have significantly reduced the amount of titleholders, though they clearly haven’t gone far enough, since they're failing to meet the expectations of most fight fans.

The reason why I mentioned the WBC, is because they seem to regularly escape criticism… and for some strange reason, no one seems to pay attention to the amount of belts they dish out, despite the following lists being rather lengthy…

Here's a list of the WBC's "Emeritus" champions:

• Vitali Klitschko
• Tony Bellew
• Floyd Mayweather [Twice Over - 147lbs & 154lbs]

Here's a list of the WBC's "Diamond" champions:

• Sergey Kovalev
• Callum Smith
• Mikey Garcia
• Jorge Linares
• Leo Santa Cruz

Here's a list of the WBC's "Silver" champions:

• Dillian Whyte
• Maxim Vlasov
• Roberto Garcia
• Kell Brook
• Josh Taylor
• Jon Fernandez
• Nonito Donaire
• Julio Ceja
• Nordine Ouabaali
• Mcwilliams Arroyo
• Gilberto Parra

Here's a list of the WBC's "International" champions:

• Constantin Bejenaru
• Avni Yildirim
• Karim Achour
• Ismail Iiiev
• Thulani Mbenge
• Champion
• Hurricane Futa
• Bekman Soylybayev
• Gavin Mcdonnell
• Duke Micah
• Vacant
• Jonathan Inguito Taconing
• Deejay Kriel

I rarely formulate an opinion without researching my claims, but it really does amaze me to see other people harshly criticising the WBA, but somehow remain strangely mute on the WBC’s practices, despite the behaviour of both organisations being very similar in nature!

I think the difference between the WBC and WBA comes down to wording.

Although the extra WBC belts are still a shameful excuse for collecting extra fees, they are clearly (by their names) NOT actual WORLD titles (although their Diamond belt is becoming way overused). Silver world titles and international titles clearly refer to being lower tier trinkets, just by their names.

On to the WBA:

Their 2nd tier belt is called the WBA WORLD championship - hence the disgust from fans.

The 3rd tier belt is called the interim WORLD championship - 'interim' is supposed to mean you're the man for now, until the actual champ gets back from injury (or something similar). It's supposed to refer to a legit world title, with a caveat of facing the injured champion on his return. It's not meant to be a permanent title.

[Enlightened-One]

EO when I said about the WBC being the better (in the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king) I didn't mean that they had fewer titles necessarily, I did a comparison of the various alphabet orgs' heavyweight rankings a few weeks ago and started a thread on it (Rating the ratings I think I called it) and apart from the inexcusably shameful example of politics and cronyism in maintaining Stiverne as mandatory-for-life, or so it seemed, the rest of their top 15 was really quite respectable, whereas those of the WBA would cause anyone associated with them who had any integrity, unlikely as that may be, to fear they might die of shame.

I'm not just basing my judgement on the ratings either but the ratings are a highly visible billboard for each of the governing bodies.

I decided the WBA were a festering pile of shite back in the early seventies so when you say they failed to meet the fans' expectations, all I can say is that they have rarely failed to meet mine

My comments in relation to the WBA were in the context of the amount of so-called “champions” that they have (as per the thread title).

I haven’t defended them, but I do recognise that it is a statistical fact (that no one can deny) that they have significantly reduced the amount of titleholders, though they clearly haven’t gone far enough, since they're failing to meet the expectations of most fight fans.

The reason why I mentioned the WBC, is because they seem to regularly escape criticism… and for some strange reason, no one seems to pay attention to the amount of belts they dish out, despite the following lists being rather lengthy…

Here's a list of the WBC's "Emeritus" champions:

• Vitali Klitschko
• Tony Bellew
• Floyd Mayweather [Twice Over - 147lbs & 154lbs]

Here's a list of the WBC's "Diamond" champions:

• Sergey Kovalev
• Callum Smith
• Mikey Garcia
• Jorge Linares
• Leo Santa Cruz

Here's a list of the WBC's "Silver" champions:

• Dillian Whyte
• Maxim Vlasov
• Roberto Garcia
• Kell Brook
• Josh Taylor
• Jon Fernandez
• Nonito Donaire
• Julio Ceja
• Nordine Ouabaali
• Mcwilliams Arroyo
• Gilberto Parra

Here's a list of the WBC's "International" champions:

• Constantin Bejenaru
• Avni Yildirim
• Karim Achour
• Ismail Iiiev
• Thulani Mbenge
• Champion
• Hurricane Futa
• Bekman Soylybayev
• Gavin Mcdonnell
• Duke Micah
• Vacant
• Jonathan Inguito Taconing
• Deejay Kriel

I rarely formulate an opinion without researching my claims, but it really does amaze me to see other people harshly criticising the WBA, but somehow remain strangely mute on the WBC’s practices, despite the behaviour of both organisations being very similar in nature!

I think the difference between the WBC and WBA comes down to wording.

Although the extra WBC belts are still a shameful excuse for collecting extra fees, they are clearly (by their names) NOT actual WORLD titles (although their Diamond belt is becoming way overused). Silver world titles and international titles clearly refer to being lower tier trinkets, just by their names.

On to the WBA:

Their 2nd tier belt is called the WBA WORLD championship - hence the disgust from fans.

The 3rd tier belt is called the interim WORLD championship - 'interim' is supposed to mean you're the man for now, until the actual champ gets back from injury (or something similar). It's supposed to refer to a legit world title, with a caveat of facing the injured champion on his return. It's not meant to be a permanent title.

I agree about the wording being the main reason why fans aren't as critical of the WBC than they are with the WBA, but let's not forget that the Diamond belt is deemed as being the "biggest honour the WBC can grant." Their words, not mine.

They've also described the Silver belt in a similar manner in the past.

The WBC are doing the very same thing as the WBA, but they're clever enough to use synonyms (in the context of status) for the word "world" for their other "most prestigious" titles.

I doubt that fight fans actually understand the purpose of the WBC's Silver and Diamond belts, hence the lack of controversy.

[Deleted_Scenes]

My comments in relation to the WBA were in the context of the amount of so-called “champions” that they have (as per the thread title).

I haven’t defended them, but I do recognise that it is a statistical fact (that no one can deny) that they have significantly reduced the amount of titleholders, though they clearly haven’t gone far enough, since they're failing to meet the expectations of most fight fans.

The reason why I mentioned the WBC, is because they seem to regularly escape criticism… and for some strange reason, no one seems to pay attention to the amount of belts they dish out, despite the following lists being rather lengthy…

Here's a list of the WBC's "Emeritus" champions:

• Vitali Klitschko
• Tony Bellew
• Floyd Mayweather [Twice Over - 147lbs & 154lbs]

Here's a list of the WBC's "Diamond" champions:

• Sergey Kovalev
• Callum Smith
• Mikey Garcia
• Jorge Linares
• Leo Santa Cruz

Here's a list of the WBC's "Silver" champions:

• Dillian Whyte
• Maxim Vlasov
• Roberto Garcia
• Kell Brook
• Josh Taylor
• Jon Fernandez
• Nonito Donaire
• Julio Ceja
• Nordine Ouabaali
• Mcwilliams Arroyo
• Gilberto Parra

Here's a list of the WBC's "International" champions:

• Constantin Bejenaru
• Avni Yildirim
• Karim Achour
• Ismail Iiiev
• Thulani Mbenge
• Champion
• Hurricane Futa
• Bekman Soylybayev
• Gavin Mcdonnell
• Duke Micah
• Vacant
• Jonathan Inguito Taconing
• Deejay Kriel

I rarely formulate an opinion without researching my claims, but it really does amaze me to see other people harshly criticising the WBA, but somehow remain strangely mute on the WBC’s practices, despite the behaviour of both organisations being very similar in nature!

I think the difference between the WBC and WBA comes down to wording.

Although the extra WBC belts are still a shameful excuse for collecting extra fees, they are clearly (by their names) NOT actual WORLD titles (although their Diamond belt is becoming way overused). Silver world titles and international titles clearly refer to being lower tier trinkets, just by their names.

On to the WBA:

Their 2nd tier belt is called the WBA WORLD championship - hence the disgust from fans.

The 3rd tier belt is called the interim WORLD championship - 'interim' is supposed to mean you're the man for now, until the actual champ gets back from injury (or something similar). It's supposed to refer to a legit world title, with a caveat of facing the injured champion on his return. It's not meant to be a permanent title.

I agree about the wording being the main reason why fans aren't as critical of the WBC than they are with the WBA, but let's not forget that the Diamond belt is deemed as being the "biggest honour the WBC can grant." Their words, not mine.

They've also described the Silver belt in a similar manner in the past.

The WBC are doing the very same thing as the WBA, but they're clever enough to use synonyms (in the context of status) for the word "world" for their other "most prestigious" titles.

I doubt that fight fans actually understand the purpose of the WBC's Silver and Diamond belts, hence the lack of controversy.

I agree with that. It's all semantics really, and I don't like either the WBC or WBA way of doing things. The WBC are just a bit more sneaky about the way they go about raking in the extra dough.

I don't like the IBF way of having permanent vacant top contenders either, thinking about it.

[candyslim]

I have to agree with DS about the description of the belts ... Regular and Super World titles ... as being the reason the WBA are held in contempt yet the WBC are largely given a free pass. You cannot get away with recognizing two world champions at the same weight by the same governing body, it screams bullshit.

[halfamill]

I think the difference between the WBC and WBA comes down to wording.

Although the extra WBC belts are still a shameful excuse for collecting extra fees, they are clearly (by their names) NOT actual WORLD titles (although their Diamond belt is becoming way overused). Silver world titles and international titles clearly refer to being lower tier trinkets, just by their names.

On to the WBA:

Their 2nd tier belt is called the WBA WORLD championship - hence the disgust from fans.

The 3rd tier belt is called the interim WORLD championship - 'interim' is supposed to mean you're the man for now, until the actual champ gets back from injury (or something similar). It's supposed to refer to a legit world title, with a caveat of facing the injured champion on his return. It's not meant to be a permanent title.

I agree about the wording being the main reason why fans aren't as critical of the WBC than they are with the WBA, but let's not forget that the Diamond belt is deemed as being the "biggest honour the WBC can grant." Their words, not mine.

They've also described the Silver belt in a similar manner in the past.

The WBC are doing the very same thing as the WBA, but they're clever enough to use synonyms (in the context of status) for the word "world" for their other "most prestigious" titles.

I doubt that fight fans actually understand the purpose of the WBC's Silver and Diamond belts, hence the lack of controversy.

I agree with that. It's all semantics really, and I don't like either the WBC or WBA way of doing things. The WBC are just a bit more sneaky about the way they go about raking in the extra dough.

I don't like the IBF way of having permanent vacant top contenders either, thinking about it.

You both make good points but I still regard the WBA a bit worse since they mislead everyone into think that there are three world champions. Almost all boxing andpromoter websites regard the regular, super and interim titles as world titles while none of those websites regard the diamond or silver titles as world titles.