BoxRec

Apparantly Braehmer is going to fight for the WBA "regular" title whilst I imagine Shumenov becomes the "super" champion. This is the shit I hate about boxing http://www.BS.com/braehmer-bel ... ght--70391

We all thought the stuff you hated about boxing was 'anything to do with Eddie Hearn.'

jameswilson wrote:We all thought the stuff you hated about boxing was 'anything to do with Eddie Hearn.'

So do you fit into the "everything I love about boxing involves Eddie Hearn" then?

Dead Mouse wrote:The WBA have scope to do this, according to their rules, and it means that the regular titlist becomes mandatory for the Super belt, which has to be defend within 18 months.

Yeah I know. It just makes a mockery of world titles though I think. Not that they aren't already a mockery to a large degree.

jameswilson wrote:We all thought the stuff you hated about boxing was 'anything to do with Eddie Hearn.'

I don't know if its that they hate Eddie, or idolise FW. The latter I think.

Yes

Shumenov is the worst world champion in the world.

Who cares - Stevenson is the champ at 175 - simple as that.

Horse wrote:Shumenov is the worst world champion in the world.

At the moment, Quigg is

danconnollyeire wrote:

Horse wrote:Shumenov is the worst world champion in the world.

At the moment, Quigg is

It isn't Quigg's fault though and he will try and fight the best unlike Shumenov.

WelshJack wrote:

danconnollyeire wrote:

Horse wrote:Shumenov is the worst world champion in the world.

At the moment, Quigg is

It isn't Quigg's fault though and he will try and fight the best unlike Shumenov.

Yeah I guess so, Shumenov should've been stripped by now it's been over a year!

It's ironic that in one of the few divisions where you could legitimately argue the WBA actually needs an 'interim champion', it doesn't have one.

IBF - No super champs, no interims, no silvers, no gold,

dammage7 wrote:IBF - No super champs, no interims, no silvers, no gold,

Yeah but they've got Andre Dirrell is their top ten, whose had one 'serious' fight in three years

If a "super" champion vacates another belt he holds does he go back to regular champ and then the regular champ loses his belt? EG Rigondeaux is now WBO and WBA Super, so if he gave up his WBO would he lose the super tag too? I was under the impression they only gave super champ status to people with more than one belt. Confused!

danconnollyeire wrote:

dammage7 wrote:IBF - No super champs, no interims, no silvers, no gold,

Yeah but they've got Andre Dirrell is their top ten, whose had one 'serious' fight in three years

He's boxed this year and is definitely top ten. Top five even.

mickey1975 wrote:

danconnollyeire wrote:

dammage7 wrote:IBF - No super champs, no interims, no silvers, no gold,

Yeah but they've got Andre Dirrell is their top ten, whose had one 'serious' fight in three years

He's boxed this year and is definitely top ten. Top five even.

Really? He's done eff to deserve a top 20 rank. He fought once in 2010 (Abraham, he's last decent opponent). Three years later and he's only faced Darryl Cunningham and some 16-6 nobody. He shouldn't even be ranked

He is technically active and better than most of the top ten.

winkveron wrote:If a "super" champion vacates another belt he holds does he go back to regular champ and then the regular champ loses his belt? EG Rigondeaux is now WBO and WBA Super, so if he gave up his WBO would he lose the super tag too? I was under the impression they only gave super champ status to people with more than one belt. Confused!

I don't think there's any consistent policy - they just do whatever they please. Originally I think the WBA Super was just for unified champs, but now they promote them for varying reasons, i.e. longevity of a champion (i.e Chris John, who has never made any attempt to unify, is a Super champ).

The only time I can remember a Super belt holder being stripped for the reason you mention was Juan Manuel Marquez. He was WBA/IBF feather champ, was stripped of his IBF title, then as a result lost the WBA belt, and had to go fight John (the regular champ) in Indonesia as a challenger. And lost I think.

The other thing I can't understand - sometimes they don't recognise a champion as 'Super' even when he should be! For example, Rigo is regarded as the 'Unified Champion'. God knows why he's not Super.

All a complete joke.

Jack B wrote:

winkveron wrote:If a "super" champion vacates another belt he holds does he go back to regular champ and then the regular champ loses his belt? EG Rigondeaux is now WBO and WBA Super, so if he gave up his WBO would he lose the super tag too? I was under the impression they only gave super champ status to people with more than one belt. Confused!

I don't think there's any consistent policy - they just do whatever they please. Originally I think the WBA Super was just for unified champs, but now they promote them for varying reasons, i.e. longevity of a champion (i.e Chris John, who has never made any attempt to unify, is a Super champ).

The only time I can remember a Super belt holder being stripped for the reason you mention was Juan Manuel Marquez. He was WBA/IBF feather champ, was stripped of his IBF title, then as a result lost the WBA belt, and had to go fight John (the regular champ) in Indonesia as a challenger. And lost I think.

The other thing I can't understand - sometimes they don't recognise a champion as 'Super' even when he should be! For example, Rigo is regarded as the 'Unified Champion'. God knows why he's not Super.

All a complete joke.

The good old "Super Champion" is a funny one. Anyone remember Yuriorkis Gamboa being the WBA "UNIFIED" champion (he was NEVER, despite what boxrec says, officially a "Super Champion"). The IBF then stripped him and the WBA later stripped him...poor guy...IIRC Froch is now a "Unified" champion and Ward is a "Super" champion...

iamasadlittleboy wrote:

Jack B wrote:

winkveron wrote:If a "super" champion vacates another belt he holds does he go back to regular champ and then the regular champ loses his belt? EG Rigondeaux is now WBO and WBA Super, so if he gave up his WBO would he lose the super tag too? I was under the impression they only gave super champ status to people with more than one belt. Confused!

I don't think there's any consistent policy - they just do whatever they please. Originally I think the WBA Super was just for unified champs, but now they promote them for varying reasons, i.e. longevity of a champion (i.e Chris John, who has never made any attempt to unify, is a Super champ).

The only time I can remember a Super belt holder being stripped for the reason you mention was Juan Manuel Marquez. He was WBA/IBF feather champ, was stripped of his IBF title, then as a result lost the WBA belt, and had to go fight John (the regular champ) in Indonesia as a challenger. And lost I think.

The other thing I can't understand - sometimes they don't recognise a champion as 'Super' even when he should be! For example, Rigo is regarded as the 'Unified Champion'. God knows why he's not Super.

All a complete joke.

The good old "Super Champion" is a funny one. Anyone remember Yuriorkis Gamboa being the WBA "UNIFIED" champion (he was NEVER, despite what boxrec says, officially a "Super Champion"). The IBF then stripped him and the WBA later stripped him...poor guy...IIRC Froch is now a "Unified" champion and Ward is a "Super" champion...

Yep - there's no real consistency. There was a similar situation to Froch/Ward at 154 with Floyd as Super and Canelo Unified.... it's all nonsense so I only look at whoever their top tier champion is.... i.e. Klitschko, Ward, Rigondeaux. Whoever is below I don't regard as a proper titleholder, i.e. Quigg.

Dead Mouse wrote:The WBA have scope to do this, according to their rules, and it means that the regular titlist becomes mandatory for the Super belt, which has to be defend within 18 months.

What scope? I thought the criteria for being upgraded to a super champ was unification with another major belt, or 10 defences.

The criteria for being a super champ are "You're not very active, but we still want the option of sanctioning fees from you whilst we collect more sanctioning fees from someone else". Any other rule is entirely flexible. It doesn't take the piss enough that there are so many sanctioning bodies, now we have sanctioning bodies with more than one world champ each. Soon enough, everyone will be a world champ.