BoxRec

he WBA "Super" Middleweight belt won't be on the line for the fight between IBF/IBO/WBA/WBC Middleweight Champion Gennady Golovkin and IBF Welterweight Champion Kell Brook.

On July 22 K2 Promotions filed for a permission, which the WBA reviewed, and they came to the following conclusion:

WBA said:
The Championships Committee and the Presidency have not agreed to sanction this bout as a title fight because Brook has never fought as a middleweight," said WBA president Gilberto Jesus Mendoza at the time of the announcement in July. "The intent of the organization is to try to protect the integrity and health of the fighters.

We do not oppose the fight, per se. But the rules of the organization stipulate that Golovkin and/or his representatives must request special permission in advance to fight Brook. Under the circumstances, if Golovkin were to lose to Kell Brook, the title would become vacant and would not end up in the hands of the British pugilist.

The determining factor was a boxer with such devastating punching power as Golovkin, entering a world title fight against a career-long welterweight.

In addition the WBA has ruled that Golovkin and Jacobs will be ordered to enter negotiations for a mandatory title fight if they both win their next bouts (Jacobs is rematching Mora)

Funny. WBA sanctioned RJJ moving up two weight divisions against Ruiz.

Suprised. Sanctioning fees?

If the fight purse was higher. Or a million dollars for sanctioning fees were imposed. The belt would mysteriously be on the line

WBA rarely does anything that makes sense.

They promised to order Jacobs-GGG, but of course they won't. It would be good for boxing, but the WBA never does anything that's good for boxing.

In boxing history, welterweights have often fought middleweights, a famous example is SRR-LaMotta.

Who cares? As long as there is still a fight.

The fans will know who the better fighter is after the fight. No one needs an idiot with a piece of paper to tell them.

Doesn't really matter. Don't know why they waited until just days before the fight to make this announcement.

Ruthless-RKO wrote:Funny. WBA sanctioned RJJ moving up two weight divisions against Ruiz.

Suprised. Sanctioning fees?

Could be down to the fact that RJJ was THEIR Light-Heavyweight champ and was gunning for a bit of century-long history......


In regards to a Non-Middleweight facing the WBC/WBA/IBF Middleweight champion and the WBA belt not being on the line........ does this resonate with anyone from a situation 30 years ago?



"T.M.K

Not like Brook is winning anyway so what difference does it make.

Money talks bs walks. I hate these crooked alphabet things.

Sanctioning bodies hate it when their titles are unified- if you have the same champion as everyone else what's the point of you? It's better for business when there are lots of champions- hence every so often they come up with nonsense reasons for splitting the titles up (see also Fury losing the IBF heavyweight).

T.M.K wrote:

Ruthless-RKO wrote:Funny. WBA sanctioned RJJ moving up two weight divisions against Ruiz.

Suprised. Sanctioning fees?

Could be down to the fact that RJJ was THEIR Light-Heavyweight champ and was gunning for a bit of century-long history......


In regards to a Non-Middleweight facing the WBC/WBA/IBF Middleweight champion and the WBA belt not being on the line........ does this resonate with anyone from a situation 30 years ago?



"T.M.K

Yep.
Just a little short of 30 years and I think the WBA actually stripped him before the fight.

If only these sanctioning bodies were consistent with the way they push their weight around. If we learned anything from Floyd's reign, once a boxer starts bringing in a certain amount of money, they make their own rules. With all the belts Floyd had hanging from his shoulders over the years, did you ever hear one of these sanctioning bodies demand a mandatory fight for him? I can't.

It's just pathetic how random and subjective rules and requirements are enforced by these alphabet organizations. There's no rhyme or reason most of the time and there's no uniformity between them all. It's ONE of the problems with our sport.

caldo2025 wrote:If only these sanctioning bodies were consistent with the way they push their weight around. If we learned anything from Floyd's reign, once a boxer starts bringing in a certain amount of money, they make their own rules. With all the belts Floyd had hanging from his shoulders over the years, did you ever hear one of these sanctioning bodies demand a mandatory fight for him? I can't.

It's just pathetic how random and subjective rules and requirements are enforced by these alphabet organizations. There's no rhyme or reason most of the time and there's no uniformity between them all. It's ONE of the problems with our sport.

Golovkin and Brook will be getting their lifetime highest purses, so if money was the only factor, it would have been sanctioned.

skippy wrote:Sanctioning bodies hate it when their titles are unified- if you have the same champion as everyone else what's the point of you? It's better for business when there are lots of champions- hence every so often they come up with nonsense reasons for splitting the titles up (see also Fury losing the IBF heavyweight).

Aren't there different rules about how much they can take in fees if there's several belts on the line too?

ABC decisions never fail to be utterly incomprehensible. They have zero reservations about sanctioning brutal mismatches like Golovkin/Ishida, but somehow Golovkin/Brook is a problem? Ugh, just go away already.

But they'll put their name to Oquendo Browne for HE title even tho Fury has the strap and Oquendo hasn't fought in 2 years and is as much use as a ash tray on a motor bike

Mendoza says that Jacobs "was available". What an idiot!

The Golovkin-Brook bout is clearly a very good “business fight” that makes a lot of “commercial sense” and whilst I appreciate the scepticism about the governing body fees being partly responsible for the WBA‘s refusal to sanction this bout, I don’t believe that there is any evidence to suggest that Gennady and Kell refused to pay the stipulated sanctioning fees.

I must admit to being a little flummoxed about the WBA’s “real” reasons for refraining to sanction this bout, based on their track-record, but their “officially-announced” justification for their decision does sound sensible (as they claim it’s merely a “business fight”).

Let’s all be honest here, it difficult to not draw comparisons between this Saturday’s contest and the Canelo-Khan bout, which Golovkin himself claimed was merely a “business fight”, when he himself is facing a similar type of opponent. Also, does anyone really believe that Brook will be competitive with GGG for more than a few rounds (at most)? It’s a borderline mismatch.

To be honest though, I don’t think it really matters whether the WBA sanctions the Golovkin-Brook bout or not, as long as they don’t subsequently decide to strip GGG of his title, as he’s due to face Danny Jacobs next (assuming Haymon can work with HBO and vice versa, coupled with the pre-requisite finances being available to fund this expensive event).

If the WBA orders the Jacobs-Golovkin bout to be open to purse bids, I wonder if GGG will be forced to vacate his title, due to his exclusive contract with HBO (as per the Stevenson-Kovalev situation)?