Page 1 of 1
Froch stripped by WBA
Posted: 08 May 2015, 10:22
by ikorolev
Re: Froch stripped by WBA
Posted: 08 May 2015, 11:08
by Freedom2013
The WBA is the worst sanctioning organization.
Why strip Froch, but not Ward, who has been inactive 18 months?
Re: Froch stripped by WBA
Posted: 08 May 2015, 12:05
by KBB
Freedom2013 wrote:The WBA is the worst sanctioning organization.
Why strip Froch, but not Ward, who has been inactive 18 months?
I agree, this is some straight up BS garbage they pulled.
Re: Froch stripped by WBA
Posted: 08 May 2015, 12:42
by Horse
Freedom2013 wrote:The WBA is the worst sanctioning organization.
Why strip Froch, but not Ward, who has been inactive 18 months?
Did either Froch or Ward refuse to fight the other when Froch was mandatory challenger and they were meant to be negotiating?
Surely Froch should only be stripped if he refused to fight Ward.
Re: Froch stripped by WBA
Posted: 08 May 2015, 12:46
by handsofstone
The funniest thing is that the winner of Ward-Smith must face Froch
Re: Froch stripped by WBA
Posted: 08 May 2015, 14:25
by ikorolev
Freedom2013 wrote:The WBA is the worst sanctioning organization.
Why strip Froch, but not Ward, who has been inactive 18 months?
They also kept Shumenov who was inactive for 18 months. Froch probably didn't bribe an appropriate person to keep his belt.
Re: Froch stripped by WBA
Posted: 08 May 2015, 15:52
by koolkc107
Yeah, because either of THOSE guys are much more POPULAR than a perennial P4P guy with a worldwide following...
Re: Froch stripped by WBA
Posted: 08 May 2015, 18:52
by Bobbyptsd
koolkc107 wrote:
Yeah, because either of THOSE guys are much more POPULAR than a perennial P4P guy with a worldwide following...
Not for nothing, but why should their popularity affect whether they should fight for a belt? I mean, assuming you want integrity, they would either be next up in the rankings, or they aren't.
I mean this is all kind of moot because they didn't strip Ward anyway, I just think bringing popularity into it is a bit strange.
Re: Froch stripped by WBA
Posted: 08 May 2015, 20:13
by Freedom2013
Horse wrote:Freedom2013 wrote:The WBA is the worst sanctioning organization.
Why strip Froch, but not Ward, who has been inactive 18 months?
Did either Froch or Ward refuse to fight the other when Froch was mandatory challenger and they were meant to be negotiating?
Surely Froch should only be stripped if he refused to fight Ward.
Ward refused. Hearn/Froch offered Ward the fight in Nottingham, where it would fill a venue.
Re: Froch stripped by WBA
Posted: 08 May 2015, 20:13
by Freedom2013
ikorolev wrote:Freedom2013 wrote:The WBA is the worst sanctioning organization.
Why strip Froch, but not Ward, who has been inactive 18 months?
They also kept Shumenov who was inactive for 18 months.
Froch probably didn't bribe an appropriate person to keep his belt.
Re: Froch stripped by WBA
Posted: 09 May 2015, 05:08
by sendo
Eddie Hearn says he has no complaints and will make an announcement in 1 week, so I suspect likely Froch is going to retire or at best 1 more non-title fight without having to sanctioning fee.
Re: Froch stripped by WBA
Posted: 09 May 2015, 10:15
by koolkc107
Bobbyptsd wrote:koolkc107 wrote:
Yeah, because either of THOSE guys are much more POPULAR than a perennial P4P guy with a worldwide following...
Not for nothing, but why should their popularity affect whether they should fight for a belt? I mean, assuming you want integrity, they would either be next up in the rankings, or they aren't.
I mean this is all kind of moot because they didn't strip Ward anyway, I just think bringing popularity into it is a bit strange.
Maybe you are right.
But, in addition to integrity, you also assume the sanctioning bodies want recognizable, marketable beltholders who can be in the biggest fights.
Kinda helps the bottom lines on those financial statements and in the press.