What's the difference between a international title and intercontinental title
-
biglefthook
- Cruiserweight
- Posts: 245
- Joined: 01 Oct 2010, 13:06
What's the difference between a international title and intercontinental title
like the ibf, wbo,ibo,wba has theese whats the differance ?
Re: What's the difference between a international title and intercontinental title
Nothing as far as I am aware. But the governing body can get 2 sanctioning fees if they have them!
Re: What's the difference between a international title and intercontinental title
Rules for titles like these are made up as they go along and so are completely worthless. I've never seen a single instance where any fighter has celebrated one of these titles as though it meant anything. Smiling while holding the belt up for the cameras, yes, but that's about it.
Usually a fighter with an international or intercontinental title has a promoter who has cosied up to that particular body to try to move him up the rankings towards a title fight.
Usually a fighter with an international or intercontinental title has a promoter who has cosied up to that particular body to try to move him up the rankings towards a title fight.
Re: What's the difference between a international title and intercontinental title
They are always vacant. Then once one fighter wins the belt he vacates it again. Bogus cash for ranking belt!
-
Kronkpride
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4553
- Joined: 20 Nov 2005, 17:55
Re: What's the difference between a international title and intercontinental title
A Continental title is basically for that continent. WBC Continental Americas title....should be fought for in the Americas only. WBC International title....can be fought for on any continent. Besides World Titles and the newer Silver Titles, International belts are the highest of the under belts. Continental belts are lower on the rung.
The thing with all the regional titles is that they are not adhered to strictly. The Latino belts routinely have non Latino fighters fighting for and holding those belts. Those belts are able to be fought for internationally but they should not be contested by non Latino fighters. But it seems like more non Latino's hold these than Latinos themselves.
Every organization has some kind of point system attached to their regional belts. Fighters fight for these titles to move up the rankings. They must pay a sanctioning fee to the organization to contest it and if they win it, they will move up that organizations rankings. How much depends upon the belt. In the WBC if you win the International title you will move up right near the top. If you win the other lower belts the climb up will be smaller and slower. The best way to move up is to capture multiple regional titles and to continually defend those belts. Those who fight for the vacant straps and relinquish them do so to gain points and then to avoid paying sanctioning fees in the next match. But if they wanted to really pile up the points they would keep the straps and keep on defending them. It depends on what kind of cash flow a team has to invest in the rise of the fighter as far as whether they can continuously defend regional titles. It's an additional cost on top of everything else the team is paying for. When you see fighters capturing and defending multiple regional straps they are putting a lot of hustle behind that muscle. When you see fighters vacating titles they have captured that team is trying to limit its expenses or doesn't have the funds to defend the belts.
The thing with all the regional titles is that they are not adhered to strictly. The Latino belts routinely have non Latino fighters fighting for and holding those belts. Those belts are able to be fought for internationally but they should not be contested by non Latino fighters. But it seems like more non Latino's hold these than Latinos themselves.
Every organization has some kind of point system attached to their regional belts. Fighters fight for these titles to move up the rankings. They must pay a sanctioning fee to the organization to contest it and if they win it, they will move up that organizations rankings. How much depends upon the belt. In the WBC if you win the International title you will move up right near the top. If you win the other lower belts the climb up will be smaller and slower. The best way to move up is to capture multiple regional titles and to continually defend those belts. Those who fight for the vacant straps and relinquish them do so to gain points and then to avoid paying sanctioning fees in the next match. But if they wanted to really pile up the points they would keep the straps and keep on defending them. It depends on what kind of cash flow a team has to invest in the rise of the fighter as far as whether they can continuously defend regional titles. It's an additional cost on top of everything else the team is paying for. When you see fighters capturing and defending multiple regional straps they are putting a lot of hustle behind that muscle. When you see fighters vacating titles they have captured that team is trying to limit its expenses or doesn't have the funds to defend the belts.
Re: What's the difference between a international title and intercontinental title
Nothing other than the words national and continental.
Re: What's the difference between a international title and intercontinental title
International and Inter-continental titles are very important in the learning process of a fighter towards gaining a full title shot. In gaining one of these you get vastly elevated into the rankings, sometimes you may need to fight an eliminator sometimes you get a title fight as a voluntary defence for the champion. These titles act as a way of bringing fighters into the ratings that promoters want.
As for the difference between the two each organisation has different values. The WBA ratings are mainly made up of regional champions rather than fighters on actual merit.
As such each title is worth around $15,000. Money usually recoverable from the TV.
As for the difference between the two each organisation has different values. The WBA ratings are mainly made up of regional champions rather than fighters on actual merit.
As such each title is worth around $15,000. Money usually recoverable from the TV.
-
leejonesjnr
- Middleweight
- Posts: 2667
- Joined: 31 Dec 2013, 18:32
Re: What's the difference between a international title and intercontinental title
Not true.Kronkpride wrote:A Continental title is basically for that continent. WBC Continental Americas title....should be fought for in the Americas only. WBC International title....can be fought for on any continent. Besides World Titles and the newer Silver Titles, International belts are the highest of the under belts. Continental belts are lower on the rung.
The thing with all the regional titles is that they are not adhered to strictly. The Latino belts routinely have non Latino fighters fighting for and holding those belts. Those belts are able to be fought for internationally but they should not be contested by non Latino fighters. But it seems like more non Latino's hold these than Latinos themselves.
Every organization has some kind of point system attached to their regional belts. Fighters fight for these titles to move up the rankings. They must pay a sanctioning fee to the organization to contest it and if they win it, they will move up that organizations rankings. How much depends upon the belt. In the WBC if you win the International title you will move up right near the top. If you win the other lower belts the climb up will be smaller and slower. The best way to move up is to capture multiple regional titles and to continually defend those belts. Those who fight for the vacant straps and relinquish them do so to gain points and then to avoid paying sanctioning fees in the next match. But if they wanted to really pile up the points they would keep the straps and keep on defending them. It depends on what kind of cash flow a team has to invest in the rise of the fighter as far as whether they can continuously defend regional titles. It's an additional cost on top of everything else the team is paying for. When you see fighters capturing and defending multiple regional straps they are putting a lot of hustle behind that muscle. When you see fighters vacating titles they have captured that team is trying to limit its expenses or doesn't have the funds to defend the belts.
International is below Inter Continental
-
Kronkpride
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4553
- Joined: 20 Nov 2005, 17:55
Re: What's the difference between a international title and intercontinental title
The WBC does not even have an INTERCONTINENTAL title.....it's WBC INTERNATIONAL title is only below the Silver and Diamond belts. They also have a silver International. Every other WBC regional title is lower than the International. Now some other organizations may be as you say but my examples used and in the WBC everything I said is correct. In the current WBC ranking #1 is Povetkin and he holds the Silver belt. #2 is Joshua and he holds the International title. That ranking Joshua has is mostly because of the International title. If he held a differing WBC regional title the holder of the International would be above him right now.leejonesjnr wrote:Not true.Kronkpride wrote:A Continental title is basically for that continent. WBC Continental Americas title....should be fought for in the Americas only. WBC International title....can be fought for on any continent. Besides World Titles and the newer Silver Titles, International belts are the highest of the under belts. Continental belts are lower on the rung.
The thing with all the regional titles is that they are not adhered to strictly. The Latino belts routinely have non Latino fighters fighting for and holding those belts. Those belts are able to be fought for internationally but they should not be contested by non Latino fighters. But it seems like more non Latino's hold these than Latinos themselves.
Every organization has some kind of point system attached to their regional belts. Fighters fight for these titles to move up the rankings. They must pay a sanctioning fee to the organization to contest it and if they win it, they will move up that organizations rankings. How much depends upon the belt. In the WBC if you win the International title you will move up right near the top. If you win the other lower belts the climb up will be smaller and slower. The best way to move up is to capture multiple regional titles and to continually defend those belts. Those who fight for the vacant straps and relinquish them do so to gain points and then to avoid paying sanctioning fees in the next match. But if they wanted to really pile up the points they would keep the straps and keep on defending them. It depends on what kind of cash flow a team has to invest in the rise of the fighter as far as whether they can continuously defend regional titles. It's an additional cost on top of everything else the team is paying for. When you see fighters capturing and defending multiple regional straps they are putting a lot of hustle behind that muscle. When you see fighters vacating titles they have captured that team is trying to limit its expenses or doesn't have the funds to defend the belts.
International is below Inter Continental
-
sucracristo
- Light Heavyweight
- Posts: 1828
- Joined: 24 Dec 2011, 23:47
Re: What's the difference between a international title and intercontinental title
the only difference they make is in the rankings of the major world titles.
below a world title (throw in interim and silver and all that crap lumped
in with world titles) is the intercontinental. in other words, if you win an
intercontinental title under a major world title, and then defend it, it earns
you a world ranking and puts you in line for a world title shot. the international
title is BELOW the intercontinental, and depending on who is fighting for it,
it sometimes is not even as valuable monetarily or as helpful in the rankings
as a continental. for example the EBU (european) continental title fights
are almost always higher quality than the WBC international title. the north
american titles below the major belts are also often better fighters than the
international titles. obviously below continental is national and regional and state.
the ones i have no clue about are these latino titles, which often have russians
and other non-latinos fighting each other for them in non-latin countries.
below a world title (throw in interim and silver and all that crap lumped
in with world titles) is the intercontinental. in other words, if you win an
intercontinental title under a major world title, and then defend it, it earns
you a world ranking and puts you in line for a world title shot. the international
title is BELOW the intercontinental, and depending on who is fighting for it,
it sometimes is not even as valuable monetarily or as helpful in the rankings
as a continental. for example the EBU (european) continental title fights
are almost always higher quality than the WBC international title. the north
american titles below the major belts are also often better fighters than the
international titles. obviously below continental is national and regional and state.
the ones i have no clue about are these latino titles, which often have russians
and other non-latinos fighting each other for them in non-latin countries.