BoxRec

I know this should really be on the current scene forum - but well David Haye was a recent WBA Heavyweight belt holder, so there is my excuse.

Just a couple of points really - okay none of us consider Povetkin as a world champion (which I hope someone bolds later... cause it is fundamentally the main point).... but what would happen say if Vitali made Povetkin an offer he couldn't refuse and challenged him for his WBA title... would there be 2 Super Champions, and a new fresh "ordinary" WBA champion? Would there then be three boxers holding a WBA world belt (let alone any interim champions).

Secondly, just wondering if there have been any talks between Vitali and Povetkin.... cause surely that fight is what the brothers would want..... no claimant for any paper title then.

How the hell does Klit beat Haye and yet Povetkin wins 'Haye's old belt'?

AGree Stu, Povetkin is no world champ, and to hear the crap on channel 5 the other week when Fury was fighting his former foe was cringeworthy.

Finch wrote:How the hell does Klit beat Haye and yet Povetkin wins 'Haye's old belt'?

Same way he beat Chagaev and Valuev won 'Chagaev's old belt'

Haye skillfully avoided Chageev IMHO.

MachoMan09 wrote:It's a nonsense. A cynical method of gleaning more sanctioning fees. 'Super Champion' and 'Regular Champion'; boxing is a joke.

It doesn't matter. We all know who the man is.

Haye would have made roadkill of Chagaev, and I'm probably the biggest Haye hater on this board.

He looked all but shot when he fought Wlad..... and the Haye fight would have been more than two years later.

MachoMan09 wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

MachoMan09 wrote:It's a nonsense. A cynical method of gleaning more sanctioning fees. 'Super Champion' and 'Regular Champion'; boxing is a joke.

It doesn't matter. We all know who the man is.

We do but the bloke in the street doesn't. It's confusing enough having WBC, WBA, IBF and WBO 'regular' champions, when you start throwing 'super' champions into the mix as well, it just makes the sport even more complex for the layman.

I agree, but once you get past two champions per division, it just doesn't matter if there are 10 champions or 12.

On rare occasions the WBA does match super champions with regular champions. The only time I can actually remember this happening is when Bernard Hopkins beat William Joppy. All that happened was Bernard stayed the super champion and Joppy lost his regular title. This just left it vacant for 2 other guys to fight for it. Although as they seem to just make up the rules as they go along, something else might happen this time!

Finch wrote:How the hell does Klit beat Haye and yet Povetkin wins 'Haye's old belt'?

AGree Stu, Povetkin is no world champ, and to hear the crap on channel 5 the other week when Fury was fighting his former foe was cringeworthy.

always the way...each broadcaster lives in its own little world.

Povetkin's team are twits...and anyone who watches the Holy fight (prob a lot) are also twits.

LeedsLad wrote:Haye would have made roadkill of Chagaev, and I'm probably the biggest Haye hater on this board.

He looked all but shot when he fought Wlad..... and the Haye fight would have been more than two years later.

He beat Valuev more convincingly than Haye. You know, for example, he actually threw punches and landed several of them.

Chagaev v Haye would have been a live fight.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

MachoMan09 wrote:It's a nonsense. A cynical method of gleaning more sanctioning fees. 'Super Champion' and 'Regular Champion'; boxing is a joke.

It doesn't matter. We all know who the man is.

Who is the man?

John Ruiz is the man, he always has been for the WBA