Daniel Dubois vs. Trevor Bryan | BT Sport - 11 June 2022

[bigjack]

Is this off already?

It was listed on boxrec yesterday, gone today..

Hope so,I can't think of a less interesting 'world heavyweight title fight' ever

I'm the opposite Jack, I want this Bryan situation sorted. Sooner rather than later. It's a stone in the shoe of the HW division and this fight was gonna finish it.
I'll cheer DDD for the first time ever!
Bryan losing should be the last dying hold that DKP has on the HW division, and that is a good thing.

Yes,if you look at it like that I agree,DK is vermin

[gregregegg]

DDD winning the reg belt can only be a good thing.

Reg belts trick casuals, casuals bring money, money buys opponents. DDD could make 3 or 4 really fun WBA reg defences befor going for the real thing i think. I just hope it happens quick.

[margaret thatcher]

ddd went from can't miss to meh

if this fight's pushed back certainly wont help


the value of the wba regular title has never been lower at hw

[gregregegg]

Reg titles only get value if you have someone credible holding them. DDD can be that guy, a bit like tank (DDD isnt tanks levle, but he is sellable as being legit). I dont know if chasing this title will be worth the fuk around though. it will if it happens in june, but if it goes much longer...

Without the WBA angle i feel like DDD should of fought 4 times since joyce. Dinu and joe cus were fine as comebacks from the busted face, but then he should of fought wach/hammer type in december then a Takem/Kuzman type aprill, and be on the hunt for chisora/helenios type after that . Gotta burry those losses and stay active, especialy when your young.

Don king is the devil, and DDDs got his dancing shoes on.

[margaret thatcher]

well here we have ddd challenging for dat wba regular title vs the great unbeaten american champ, should be a big fight then

dan's actually a world champ already, dat interim champ of da world

and his career has never been more boring

[gregregegg]

well here we have ddd challenging for dat wba regular title vs the great unbeaten american champ, should be a big fight then

dan's actually a world champ already, dat interim champ of da world

and his career has never been more boring

It is a big fight, its just don kings in charge so it dosent feel that way.... dosent even feel like it will happen. IF frank had won the bid this would be a big fight, in the O2 or somthing with good buzz around it i think.

3 million dollar bid...... thats big. franks 2nd bid was 2.5 million, also very big.

The bid is
5x the hunter vs hrgocic purse bid for a genuine world title mandatory.
5x hrgovic vs zhang.
2x the whyte vs pulev bid (interestingly nearly 4x matchrooms bid on that fight).

Im not saying DDD defending the WBA reg sells out wembely... im just saying it ads a bit to his fights. Problem isnt the WBA reg belt, its its proximity to Don king. (for the record i think WBA reg is trash and means less than a brittish title... i just know it can be minipulated,, like tanks carrer, or canelo vs rocky feilding ect ect, casuals dont even know its reg when used well).

[Ruthless-RKO]

well here we have ddd challenging for dat wba regular title vs the great unbeaten american champ, should be a big fight then

dan's actually a world champ already, dat interim champ of da world

and his career has never been more boring

The interim got stripped and WBA ordered all the former interim champs to fight the reg holders.

Btw, was DDD must see?

[freddy73]

DDD winning the reg belt can only be a good thing.

Reg belts trick casuals, casuals bring money, money buys opponents. DDD could make 3 or 4 really fun WBA reg defences befor going for the real thing i think. I just hope it happens quick.

Like David Haye?

[Ruthless-RKO]

DDD winning the reg belt can only be a good thing.

Reg belts trick casuals, casuals bring money, money buys opponents. DDD could make 3 or 4 really fun WBA reg defences befor going for the real thing i think. I just hope it happens quick.

Like David Haye?

Haye was never the Regular belt holder.

The Regular belt was created AFTER Haye won the WBA belt.

[margaret thatcher]

i remember that legendary ustinov - charr fight for the wba regular, what a night that was

for the heavyweight champ to then return from a 4 year hiatus to stop the unbeaten ko machine chris lovejoy........incredible. shades of ali

[gregregegg]

i remember that legendary ustinov - charr fight for the wba regular, what a night that was

for the heavyweight champ to then return from a 4 year hiatus to stop the unbeaten ko machine chris lovejoy........incredible. shades of ali

Feel like this is sarcasim. but Charr is the ultiment reference to the power of the reg belt. It kept his name relevent for 4 years.

[margaret thatcher]

feels like sarcasm?

now why would you think that?

i guess ddd (who of course has been a world heavyweight champ already!) has joined the circus freakshow now too

[Riddick Bowie]

DDD winning the reg belt can only be a good thing.

Reg belts trick casuals, casuals bring money, money buys opponents. DDD could make 3 or 4 really fun WBA reg defences befor going for the real thing i think. I just hope it happens quick.

Like David Haye?

Haye was never the Regular belt holder.

The Regular belt was created AFTER Haye won the WBA belt.

No. The super champ/regular belt concept was created in 2001.

[freddy73]

Like David Haye?

Haye was never the Regular belt holder.

The Regular belt was created AFTER Haye won the WBA belt.

No. The super champ/regular belt concept was created in 2001.

Looks like effectively the same belt..

https://boxrec.com/en/title/41/Heavyweight

[Ruthless-RKO]

Haye was never the Regular belt holder.

The Regular belt was created AFTER Haye won the WBA belt.

No. The super champ/regular belt concept was created in 2001.

Looks like effectively the same belt..

https://boxrec.com/en/title/41/Heavyweight

https://boxrec.com/en/title/43/Heavyweight

Super was only created in 2012, therefore anything bfore that was either WBA world / interim.

[Riddick Bowie]

No. The super champ/regular belt concept was created in 2001.

Looks like effectively the same belt..

https://boxrec.com/en/title/41/Heavyweight

https://boxrec.com/en/title/43/Heavyweight

Super was only created in 2012, therefore anything bfore that was either WBA world / interim.

Hopkins in 2001 was elevated to 'super champ' status while Joppy and Eastman boxed for the WBA world title on the Lewis/Rahman 2 undercard. Not an interim. World. So Hopkins and, at the end of the night, Joppy were Super champ and world champ respectively.

[Ruthless-RKO]

Looks like effectively the same belt..

https://boxrec.com/en/title/41/Heavyweight

https://boxrec.com/en/title/43/Heavyweight

Super was only created in 2012, therefore anything bfore that was either WBA world / interim.

Hopkins in 2001 was elevated to 'super champ' status while Joppy and Eastman boxed for the WBA world title on the Lewis/Rahman 2 undercard. Not an interim. World. So Hopkins and, at the end of the night, Joppy were Super champ and world champ respectively.

That's fine pal, but the WBA only introduced the Super champion after Wlad beat Haye, not before. Haye was the sole WBA belt holder at the time, so just like the normal IBF champion etc.

Looks like they started the other divisions earlier.

[Riddick Bowie]

https://boxrec.com/en/title/43/Heavyweight

Super was only created in 2012, therefore anything bfore that was either WBA world / interim.

Hopkins in 2001 was elevated to 'super champ' status while Joppy and Eastman boxed for the WBA world title on the Lewis/Rahman 2 undercard. Not an interim. World. So Hopkins and, at the end of the night, Joppy were Super champ and world champ respectively.

That's fine pal, but the WBA only introduced the Super champion after Wlad beat Haye, not before. Haye was the sole WBA belt holder at the time, so just like the normal IBF champion etc.

Looks like they started the other divisions earlier.

No!! The WBA introduced the Super champion rule across ALL weight classes in 2001!!

The reason it didn't affect the heavyweight division is because at the time John Ruiz was the sole holder. Had he and Lewis unified the winner would have become super champ and someone else would've boxed for the WBA title.

Wladimir was the first 'WBA super champ' not because they introduced the rule for heavyweights in 2011 but because no WBA champ had actually unified with another heavyweight champion since the rule was introduced in 2001. Look at the list of champs: Ruiz, Jones, Ruiz again, Toney, Valuev, Chagaev (whose WBA belt wasn't on the line when he lost to Klit), Haye. See? No defending WBA champ boxed a fellow alphabet champ till Haye/Klit.

This is not hard to understand.

[Ruthless-RKO]

Hopkins in 2001 was elevated to 'super champ' status while Joppy and Eastman boxed for the WBA world title on the Lewis/Rahman 2 undercard. Not an interim. World. So Hopkins and, at the end of the night, Joppy were Super champ and world champ respectively.

That's fine pal, but the WBA only introduced the Super champion after Wlad beat Haye, not before. Haye was the sole WBA belt holder at the time, so just like the normal IBF champion etc.

Looks like they started the other divisions earlier.

No!! The WBA introduced the Super champion rule across ALL weight classes in 2001!!

The reason it didn't affect the heavyweight division is because at the time John Ruiz was the sole holder. Had he and Lewis unified the winner would have become super champ and someone else would've boxed for the WBA title.

Wladimir was the first 'WBA super champ' not because they introduced the rule for heavyweights in 2011 but because no WBA champ had actually unified with another heavyweight champion since the rule was introduced in 2001. Look at the list of champs: Ruiz, Jones, Ruiz again, Toney, Valuev, Chagaev (whose WBA belt wasn't on the line when he lost to Klit), Haye. See? No defending WBA champ boxed a fellow alphabet champ till Haye/Klit.

This is not hard to understand.

So what I’m saying is not wrong is it?

The first WBA super champion was Wlad.. so Haye was the Sole WBA champion? Is that not wrong?

Chagaev was champ in recess cus he pulled out of fighting Valuev twice.

Valuev then beat Ruiz for the vacant belt; then lost to Haye.

Am I wrong?

[KiwiRider]

i remember that legendary ustinov - charr fight for the wba regular, what a night that was

for the heavyweight champ to then return from a 4 year hiatus to stop the unbeaten ko machine chris lovejoy........incredible. shades of ali

Feel like this is sarcasim. but Charr is the ultiment reference to the power of the reg belt. It kept his name relevent for 4 years.

Umm, yeah, dripping with so much sarcasm I had to have a shower afterwards.
Charr isn't relevant by the way. He is not even relevant to dedicated boxing fans. He is sort of like Don King's sideshow attraction. Pay $2 and go behind the curtains to see a bored looking bloke hunched over on his stool, his stomach stained with green from the fake silver belt around his waist.
You go back out and ask for a refund, and the cackling ancient black man just says: "See you in court sucka"

[Riddick Bowie]

That's fine pal, but the WBA only introduced the Super champion after Wlad beat Haye, not before. Haye was the sole WBA belt holder at the time, so just like the normal IBF champion etc.

Looks like they started the other divisions earlier.

No!! The WBA introduced the Super champion rule across ALL weight classes in 2001!!

The reason it didn't affect the heavyweight division is because at the time John Ruiz was the sole holder. Had he and Lewis unified the winner would have become super champ and someone else would've boxed for the WBA title.

Wladimir was the first 'WBA super champ' not because they introduced the rule for heavyweights in 2011 but because no WBA champ had actually unified with another heavyweight champion since the rule was introduced in 2001. Look at the list of champs: Ruiz, Jones, Ruiz again, Toney, Valuev, Chagaev (whose WBA belt wasn't on the line when he lost to Klit), Haye. See? No defending WBA champ boxed a fellow alphabet champ till Haye/Klit.

This is not hard to understand.

So what I’m saying is not wrong is it?

The first WBA super champion was Wlad.. so Haye was the Sole WBA champion? Is that not wrong?

Chagaev was champ in recess cus he pulled out of fighting Valuev twice.

Valuev then beat Ruiz for the vacant belt; then lost to Haye.

Am I wrong?

Ergh.... I'm guessing English isn't your first language.

Saying 'the WBA only introduced the Super champion after Haye beat Wlad, not before' is factually incorrect by 10 years. And that's what you first said.

Saying 'Wlad was the first WBA super (heavy) champ' is correct, but NOT because the WBA only introduced the rule then, which is off by 10 years. The Super champ rule was introduced across all weight classes in 2001 for any WBA champ unifying with another alphabet champ.

I don't know who is arguing Haye wasn't sole WBA champ, you appear to be confusing me with some other poster.

[KiwiRider]

English isn't your first language, is like saying focusing at work isn't your strong point

[boxing_rob]

At first the WBA genuinely stuck to their rule of only allowing a super title if you held another organization's belt. To the point where they stripped Juan Manuel Marquez of the super title after he vacated the IBF title he also held. When he faced Chris John he was technically the 'challenger'!

But after a few years they decided that wasn't good enough and just started treating them almost like lifetime achievement awards and handing them out to anyone with a decent following who had held the title for a long time. Often when an inconvenient mandatory was looming. Felix Sturm is the first guy I remember benefiting from that.

These days it's even worse, they don't even bother with the long title reign thing anymore and just hand them out to their favourites seemingly at random, making it impossible to follow who their proper champion even is.

But back to the point, Haye was indeed the sole champion, because no other title holder had faced a WBA champ before hand to create a super title (and they were still sticking to their rule back then). Don King and Sauerland had that belt locked down with the same few guys just fighting for it again and again.

As an example of how things have changed, they chucked their super belt at Wlad VS Joshua, completely ignoring whoever the regular champ was at the time. No one was complaining because Joshua VS Lucas Browne or Joshua VS Charr wasn't exactly going to set the world on fire.

[Ruthless-RKO]

At first the WBA genuinely stuck to their rule of only allowing a super title if you held another organization's belt. To the point where they stripped Juan Manuel Marquez of the super title after he vacated the IBF title he also held. When he faced Chris John he was technically the 'challenger'!

But after a few years they decided that wasn't good enough and just started treating them almost like lifetime achievement awards and handing them out to anyone with a decent following who had held the title for a long time. Often when an inconvenient mandatory was looming. Felix Sturm is the first guy I remember benefiting from that.

These days it's even worse, they don't even bother with the long title reign thing anymore and just hand them out to their favourites seemingly at random, making it impossible to follow who their proper champion even is.

But back to the point, Haye was indeed the sole champion, because no other title holder had faced a WBA champ before hand to create a super title (and they were still sticking to their rule back then). Don King and Sauerland had that belt locked down with the same few guys just fighting for it again and again.

As an example of how things have changed, they chucked their super belt at Wlad VS Joshua, completely ignoring whoever the regular champ was at the time. No one was complaining because Joshua VS Lucas Browne or Joshua VS Charr wasn't exactly going to set the world on fire.

Yeh, they could have elevated the regular champion to super after Fury was stripped.. But they didn't. Regular was relegated to his worst state, and no one complained over Wlad-AJ, the winner was gonna be unified champion, which allows the 'Super' to be included.

[boxing_rob]

I guess the bit I left out is that at first you always had to face the current WBA champ (holding either IBF, WBO or WBC already) for a new super belt to be created. The 'elevate to super champ' thing wasn't there, nor was there vacant super titles put on the line in fights that didn't involve the current champ.

Not that I'm complaining, Joshua Klitschko was a great fight between top guys, much more worthy of the belt than say Wilder VS Charr or Parker VS Charr would have been. I just think it's kinda interesting how every few years they find another rule to start ignoring and it gets a bit more ridiculous each time!

Returning to the original topic, I hope this works out for Dubois, it's a big gamble. Basically a year of shenanigans to try and get a mandatory shot at Usyk/Joshua/whoever. If he loses or is victim of bad judging, he's wasted a year of his career. Even if he wins, the WBA are notorious for making it up as they go along and he might not get the shot anyway. Of course whilst he's waiting he could always do the WBA a favour and knock off Charr and Oquendo