Page 1 of 1

Warrens alleged problems with WBA

Posted: 29 Jun 2009, 18:08
by chinny
Does anyone know why the WBA are unhappy with Warren? Doug Fischer refers to it today.
He speculates that they may not sanction Khan as champion if he beats Kotelnik.

Presumably linked to SN administration?

Or maybe the fact that he and Joe conspired to keep the sanctioning fees for the Kessler fight by misreporting JCs purse as £1m?

http://www.ringtv.com/blog/827/dougies_ ... y_mailbag/

I would say that he has to fight the winner of Kotelnik-Khan, but the WBA may not recognize that as a title fight because of a beef the Panama-based organization has with Khan’s promoter allegedly… please don’t ask me to go into it, it’s just boxing politics.)

Re: Warrens alleged problems with WBA

Posted: 29 Jun 2009, 18:19
by hitman_hatton1
does anyone actually care about these trinkets anymore.

it's like junior witter fighting for the wbc title in august.

it's a big case of so what. :roll:

nobody cares about these self serving arseholes anymore. :shame:

beating kotelnik would be a step forward title or no title. :>

Re: Warrens alleged problems with WBA

Posted: 29 Jun 2009, 19:16
by crusader
For Khan it is important to have a title. He is a mainstream name and being able to market him as a world champion would be preferable over marketing him as "a guy who beat a title holder and in the eyes of boxing fans should be a world champion." Non boxing fans are gullible and labels/win-loss ratios can mean a lot more than who a boxer has actually defeated.

Khan will obviously help his cause if he wins even without a title, but I think he would gain more respect from the boxing community than the "outsiders"

Re: Warrens alleged problems with WBA

Posted: 30 Jun 2009, 06:10
by dondada
chinny wrote:Does anyone know why the WBA are unhappy with Warren? Doug Fischer refers to it today.
He speculates that they may not sanction Khan as champion if he beats Kotelnik.

Presumably linked to SN administration?

Or maybe the fact that he and Joe conspired to keep the sanctioning fees for the Kessler fight by misreporting JCs purse as £1m?

http://www.ringtv.com/blog/827/dougies_ ... y_mailbag/

I would say that he has to fight the winner of Kotelnik-Khan, but the WBA may not recognize that as a title fight because of a beef the Panama-based organization has with Khan’s promoter allegedly… please don’t ask me to go into it, it’s just boxing politics.)
See, re the earlier thread that was closed, this is exactly why the Calzaghe court case needed Boxing News to cover it properly.

Re: Warrens alleged problems with WBA

Posted: 30 Jun 2009, 06:14
by Spud
This whole W arren & Calzaghe saga leaves a bad taste and I simply do not understand why jounralists sh*t themselves so much about him!!!

Yes yes court action and all that - but if you keep to the facts etc etc then you cannot get into trouble can you!!!

Completely avoiding the issue pretending its not there is simply not on!!!

Re: Warrens alleged problems with WBA

Posted: 30 Jun 2009, 07:44
by caffrey
the WBA and certain promoters are just scheming to make bucks and dont give a crap about the sport of boxing.If the WBA do not put their title on a hot money making commodity like kahn if he beats kotelnik i ll be astonished

Re: Warrens alleged problems with WBA

Posted: 30 Jun 2009, 10:18
by Phenomenal-Nutrition
hitman_hatton1 wrote:does anyone actually care about these trinkets anymore.

it's like junior witter fighting for the wbc title in august.

it's a big case of so what. :roll:

nobody cares about these self serving arseholes anymore. :shame:

beating kotelnik would be a step forward title or no title. :>
Like you didn't care when Hatton was fighting for the WBA Welter title and rate it as a title then :lol:

Re: Warrens alleged problems with WBA

Posted: 30 Jun 2009, 10:24
by whicker
I tend to agree that the "world" title itself isn't the main draw.

Re: Warrens alleged problems with WBA

Posted: 30 Jun 2009, 10:44
by chinny
whicker wrote:I tend to agree that the "world" title itself isn't the main draw.
Would Khan be fighting Kotelnik if he wasn't WBA champ though?
It still means something.

Re: Warrens alleged problems with WBA

Posted: 30 Jun 2009, 10:50
by whicker
chinny wrote:
whicker wrote:I tend to agree that the "world" title itself isn't the main draw.
Would Khan be fighting Kotelnik if he wasn't WBA champ though?
It still means something.
Yeah, thats true- but I meant that for me it's the quality in depth of the bill as a whole, and the even match up for Khan that are the main draw.

Re: Warrens alleged problems with WBA

Posted: 30 Jun 2009, 10:54
by chinny
Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote: See, re the earlier thread that was closed, this is exactly why the Calzaghe court case needed Boxing News to cover it properly.
I agree it needs to be covered. I don't neccessarily come down as hard as you on todays version of BN but I've posted at length a few times on this and every thread has been deleted.

Re: Warrens alleged problems with WBA

Posted: 30 Jun 2009, 11:05
by hitman_hatton1
Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:Like you didn't care when Hatton was fighting for the WBA Welter title and rate it as a title then :lol:
it was a good win over a good opponent.

and in the record books hatton goes down as a 2 weight world champion.

i'd prefer to see the belt on the line meself when khan fights kotelnik.

but i won't be losing any sleep if the wba pull out. :shame:

Re: Warrens alleged problems with WBA

Posted: 30 Jun 2009, 11:49
by Autobarn
well they're not going to fight with no title on the line are they