BoxRec

I know all the sanctioning bodies shown themselves to be unqualified to run boxing properly but the quote below from the WBC which I just read on fightnews is, in my opinion, borderline criminal.

WBA super welterweight world champion Austin Trout will not be accepted by the WBC as an opponent for WBC super welterweight champion Saul “Canelo” Alvarez for September 15 in Las Vegas. Trout had been mentioned as one of the possible candidates to replace Victor Ortiz. The WBC said Tuesday: “We do not accept unification, because if we agree we would be losing authority. We are not going to take away the exclusivity because we own the WBC brand.”

One interesting story line an Alvarez-Trout match would have is Trout won his title from Canelo’s brother. Another issue is that Trout has stated he’ll only do the fight if Canelo agrees to VADA testing. Other candidates named by the WBC are James Kirkland, Carlos Molina and Acelino Freitas.

1- So the WBC no longer accepts unification fights? Braw...

2- They won't accept another champion (well one of the WBA's numerous 154 champs but you get the point) but the are falling over themselves to serve up a near 37 year old former lightweight (!!!!!!!!!) who has had one ruddy fight the last 63 months and that against a cotton wool clad kid who had never beaten anyone of even British title level.

It can't happen as Canelo is PPV and you'd have to be drunk on meths to think Canelo vs Freitas is worthy of $45. However what the WBC is proposing is very, very dangerous.

I do hope that this doesn't set a precedent. If the WBC aren't going to accept unifications anymore you can see the others following suit. We NEED more unifications so we don't have 73 champions per weight division.

But it's the WBC, what do we expect?

...didn't they sanction Ioka v Yeagashi?

The WBA opted out of unification proper with their super belts. Undisputed champs are a thing of the past, must to boxing's detriment.

The game is dead.

Saw GoldenBoy are waiting on the winner of Bundrage/Spinks and it aint gonna be on ppv.

smoggy7188 wrote:Saw GoldenBoy are waiting on the winner of Bundrage/Spinks and it aint gonna be on ppv.

Heard Freitas' name being thrown out there earlier...that would disgust me but sum up Canelos reign.

iamasadlittleboy wrote:

smoggy7188 wrote:Saw GoldenBoy are waiting on the winner of Bundrage/Spinks and it aint gonna be on ppv.

Heard Freitas' name being thrown out there earlier...that would disgust me but sum up Canelos return.

I usually look at Fat Dan's Twitter for my US news and he is usually spot on.

If the WBC won't allow a unification with the WBA...why would they accept an IBF unification with the Bundrage/Spinks winner?

RE Fat Dan did he not basically say Trout was a done deal a few days ago?

iamasadlittleboy wrote:If the WBC won't allow a unification with the WBA...why would they accept an IBF unification with the Bundrage/Spinks winner?

RE Fat Dan did he not basically say Trout was a done deal a few days ago?

Thats what I thought when reading it. Just putting up what I saw. Apparently Trout was all but signed.

loaded_gloves wrote:The WBA opted out of unification proper with their super belts. Undisputed champs are a thing of the past, must to boxing's detriment.

The game is dead.

Why are undisputed champs a thing of the past?

jameswilson wrote:

loaded_gloves wrote:The WBA opted out of unification proper with their super belts. Undisputed champs are a thing of the past, must to boxing's detriment.

The game is dead.

Why are undisputed champs a thing of the past?

Because there will always be a dispute...despite having 3 titles Wladimir Klitschko isn't even the undisputed WBA champion...

iamasadlittleboy wrote:

jameswilson wrote:

loaded_gloves wrote:The WBA opted out of unification proper with their super belts. Undisputed champs are a thing of the past, must to boxing's detriment.

The game is dead.

Why are undisputed champs a thing of the past?

Because there will always be a dispute...despite having 3 titles Wladimir Klitschko isn't even the undisputed WBA champion...

It blows my mind that people think an Undisputed champ HAS to hold the 4 titles, the number of times down the years I'v seen this argument made.

Mate Lennox Lewis never held the 4 titles but he was the Undisputed champ. David Haye after beating Maccarinelli was the Undisputed champ despite not having the IBF title. If it's clear the other champions aren't worthy and/or a fighter has beaten all the concievable challengers then they become Undisputed. By your definition when Hopkins won the 4 titles against De La Hoya he became Undisputed champ, then when he relinquished one of the titles because he couldn't uphold all the mandatories that were flooding in, he suddenly loses that Undisputed tag. And likewise with Calzaghe after he beat Kessler, he had relinquished the IBF title before that fight with Kessler but that fight was in everyones eyes deciding the undisputed champ, after Bute won the IBF title nobody was saying 'eh well hold on Bute disputes that Undisputed tag.'

this argument is so 1980. Of course the WBC still actively pursue unifications...now they unify the WBC Silver, Emeritus, In Recess, Interim, Full holders. No need to involve the other sanctioning bodies any more.

does that explain the decision of the WBA to declare the peterson vs khan bout a no-contest and in turn make the up-coming WBC bout between garcia and khan a unification bout with thier strap back in the mixing pot

if it is, it's pure, crafty, mischievous genius by the WBA

WBC: we're not doing unification fights anymore
WBA: oh, did we tell you, we've just turned your upcoming title fight into a unification fight. Mwahahaha!

The WBC are absolutely correct in refusing to sanction this fight as a unification, because Austin Trout is not the WBA 154lb champ.

Have people forgotten what belt(s) Mayweather Jr holds?

Trout should be regarded as nothing more then a contender - the WBA regular title should not be acknowledged as a bonafide title.

WeBeCrazy.

oliverc wrote:The WBC are absolutely correct in refusing to sanction this fight as a unification, because Austin Trout is not the WBA 154lb champ.

Have people forgotten what belt(s) Mayweather Jr holds?

Trout should be regarded as nothing more then a contender - the WBA regular title should not be acknowledged as a bonafide title.

Ahh! Mayweather holds the WBA 'Super World' title, which is different from the WBA'World' title held by Trout, and this is different from the WBA 'Interim' title won by Mundine.

So would Canelo have to beat all 3 of them to be the unified champion?

jameswilson wrote: It blows my mind that people think an Undisputed champ HAS to hold the 4 titles, the number of times down the years I'v seen this argument made.

Mate Lennox Lewis never held the 4 titles but he was the Undisputed champ. David Haye after beating Maccarinelli was the Undisputed champ despite not having the IBF title. If it's clear the other champions aren't worthy and/or a fighter has beaten all the concievable challengers then they become Undisputed. By your definition when Hopkins won the 4 titles against De La Hoya he became Undisputed champ, then when he relinquished one of the titles because he couldn't uphold all the mandatories that were flooding in, he suddenly loses that Undisputed tag. And likewise with Calzaghe after he beat Kessler, he had relinquished the IBF title before that fight with Kessler but that fight was in everyones eyes deciding the undisputed champ, after Bute won the IBF title nobody was saying 'eh well hold on Bute disputes that Undisputed tag.'

Undisputed means you hold the WBC, IBF and WBA titles at the same time. Haye was the Unified Cruiser weight champion there was still someone in contention at cruiserweight that haye chose not to fight - we and the media can term someone as being an undisputed champion but that doesnt really make it so. However if a fighter wipes out all the opposition like Lewis did i think it is justified that the media and fans refer to him as the undisputed champion.

Wlad cant be the undisputed champion if theres an argument that Vitali who holds the WBC title could beat him?

I usually consider the ring belt holder the true number 1 in the division but undisputed champion is a term that can be used out of context by the media, if you lower the benchmark before you know it every tom dick and harry with a belt will be tagged as undisputed. The term should be saved for fighters who have wiped out every top class rival or those who have actually gained the recognised belts.

oliverc wrote:The WBC are absolutely correct in refusing to sanction this fight as a unification, because Austin Trout is not the WBA 154lb champ.

Have people forgotten what belt(s) Mayweather Jr holds?

Trout should be regarded as nothing more then a contender - the WBA regular title should not be acknowledged as a bonafide title.

Yep its looks more like a stand against degrading the WBC belt and legitimising the WBA regular champion belt. The WBA super champion belt needs to go imo.

jameswilson wrote:It blows my mind that people think an Undisputed champ HAS to hold the 4 titles, the number of times down the years I'v seen this argument made.

Mate Lennox Lewis never held the 4 titles but he was the Undisputed champ. David Haye after beating Maccarinelli was the Undisputed champ despite not having the IBF title. If it's clear the other champions aren't worthy and/or a fighter has beaten all the concievable challengers then they become Undisputed. By your definition when Hopkins won the 4 titles against De La Hoya he became Undisputed champ, then when he relinquished one of the titles because he couldn't uphold all the mandatories that were flooding in, he suddenly loses that Undisputed tag. And likewise with Calzaghe after he beat Kessler, he had relinquished the IBF title before that fight with Kessler but that fight was in everyones eyes deciding the undisputed champ, after Bute won the IBF title nobody was saying 'eh well hold on Bute disputes that Undisputed tag.'

By definition "undisputed" means "there is no dispute". As stupid as it sounds it's a simple case of definition.

The examples you used-Haye had a very good "rival" claim by Steve Cunningham, the IBF champion who had won just as many world title fights as Haye had and in beating Huck had solidified his claim. Hopkins never got stripped, Taylor did, though it's as a result of the Hopkins-Taylor-Pavlik-Martinez line that we now have a clear #1 in the division, despite the fact that the division is effectively a mess with titles.

Calzaghe, upon relinquishing his title was no longer undisputed as stupid as it seems, though he was the lineal champion, the clear "king of the mountain"...however following the victory over Kessler he jumped up to 175.

Unified-holds more than 2 belts
king of the mountain/the man-de facto by beating the top contenders or the previous king
Undisputed-holds all titles at the same time

Do you consider Martinez the undisputed champion?

Unified-holds more than 2 belts
king of the mountain/the man-de facto by beating the top contenders or the previous king
Undisputed-holds all titles at the same time

I agree.

The term 'undisputed champion’ denotes a fighter holding all the major belts, not simply a fighter who is clearly the best in the division.