BoxRec

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑23 Mar 2018, 14:13 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.

I do remember a couple of years ago that the WBA really did have 3 champions in each of the 17 weight classes. I've been following their reduction of titles since they announced their intentions. But a large amount of those reductions is due to fighters vacating due to moving up in weight class or retiring. Now and then they still mention their intentions of reducing the number of titles but in recent months the following "vacant" title fights have been made despite the fact that there are already champions on those weight classes

Gaballo vs Young at 118
Cuellar vs Davis at 130
Matthyse vs Kiram at 147
Soro vs Vera at 154
Arsen vs Merhy at 200
Canizalez vs Reiya at 108
Oquendo vs Charr at heavyweight

halfamill wrote: ↑25 Mar 2018, 15:36

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑23 Mar 2018, 14:13 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.

I've been following their reduction of titles since they announced their intentions. But a large amount of those reductions is due to fighters vacating due to moving up in weight class or retiring. Now and then they still mention their intentions of reducing the number of titles but in recent months the following "vacant" title fights have been made despite the fact that there are already champions on those weight classes...

The amount of world titleholders will inevitably fluctuate on an ongoing basis, but the underlying long-term trend, as illustrated by the proverbial "big picture", is something that we should focus on, rather than the minutiae of a select few situations.

It seems fairly obvious that the WBA have allowed the amount of so-called “champions” to decline organically, because there would be financial & legal ramifications if they chose to do otherwise, since they cannot receive sanctioning fees for their secondary titles, but then subsequently strip these belts from their titleholders without having legitimate sporting reasons for doing so (as per the Graciano Rocchigiani-WBC lawsuit).

I do feel that a reduction from 41 titleholders (as of January 2016) to the current figure of 25 (this was correct as of ten days ago) is a significant improvement, but perhaps not as much as anyone would like. The WBA clearly needs to do better.

Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑21 Mar 2018, 06:06

the_doctor wrote: ↑21 Mar 2018, 04:17
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.

I didn't realise that, very interesting. I suppose that makes sense. Sort of...

Although it still doesn't make me feel any better about either Manuel Charr or Fres Oquendo being legitimately referred to as "Heavyweight Champion of the World"