BoxRec

http://www.BS.com/manuel-charr ... nn--113647

Does anyone know why the WBA makes these ridiculous decisions?

Why they have boxers who are not really top 25 contenders any more fight for world titles?

Freedom2013 wrote:http://www.BS.com/manuel-charr ... nn--113647

Does anyone know why the WBA makes these ridiculous decisions?

Why they have boxers who are not really top 25 contenders any more fight for world titles?

Absolute idiots. Talk about getting rid of titles. Already having trouble making the Briggs-Oquendo fight.

This is the title every young prospect will be gunning for. This is the worst four fighter carnival I've ever seen.

The WBA is a joke. Their title should be meaningless to all fight fans at this point.

Are they demanding a minimum purse bid of $1m for this crapfest, too?

That is impressive, they managed to find a fight less interesting than Briggs/oquendo.

WBA Denies Approving Manuel Charr vs. Odlanier Solis for Title

http://www.BS.com/wba-denies-a ... Jc5fg.dpuf

On Wednesday there was an article in German publication BILD, which revealed that a fight was finalized between heavyweights Manuel Charr (28-4) and Odlanier Solis (22-3, 14 KOs) for March 11 in Boon, and with the WBA interim title at stake.

The news was strange, considering that Solis is not even rated by the WBA and Charr is just getting his career back in order after getting shot in the fall of 2015.

The sanctioning body has caught wind of the fight announcement and denied that is ever sanctioned for a WBA title, interim or otherwise.

That clears that up!

Freedom2013 wrote:Does anyone know why the WBA makes these ridiculous decisions?

When two fighters compete for the vacant WBA interim title, isn’t that simply their equivalent of a title eliminator, whereby the winner isn’t an actual world champion, instead they’re simply the mandatory to the “real” titleholder?

Enlightened-One wrote:

Freedom2013 wrote:Does anyone know why the WBA makes these ridiculous decisions?

When two fighters compete for the vacant WBA interim title, isn’t that simply their equivalent of a title eliminator, whereby the winner isn’t an actual world champion, instead they’re simply the mandatory to the “real” titleholder?

The Interim title is their eliminator, but they call it a world title which is annoying. Also holding the Interim title, they don't fight the regular champion until after 2 years, where as if you are a mandatory, you're next in line.

Ruthless-RKO wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:

Freedom2013 wrote:Does anyone know why the WBA makes these ridiculous decisions?

When two fighters compete for the vacant WBA interim title, isn’t that simply their equivalent of a title eliminator, whereby the winner isn’t an actual world champion, instead they’re simply the mandatory to the “real” titleholder?

The Interim title is their eliminator, but they call it a world title which is annoying. Also holding the Interim title, they don't fight the regular champion until after 2 years, where as if you are a mandatory, you're next in line.

Doesn't all of the sports governing bodies occassionally have interim world champions? Also, hasn't fighters like Deontay Wilder and Adonis Stevenson failed to perform a mandatory defence of their WBC titles in more than two years even though contenders in their weight classes have engaged in title eliminators?

I understand the criticism of the WBA, but most of the other organisations also get up to the same sort of shenanigans without receiving similar condemnation.

Enlightened-One wrote:

Ruthless-RKO wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote: When two fighters compete for the vacant WBA interim title, isn’t that simply their equivalent of a title eliminator, whereby the winner isn’t an actual world champion, instead they’re simply the mandatory to the “real” titleholder?

The Interim title is their eliminator, but they call it a world title which is annoying. Also holding the Interim title, they don't fight the regular champion until after 2 years, where as if you are a mandatory, you're next in line.

Doesn't all of the sports governing bodies occassionally have interim world champions? Also, hasn't fighters like Deontay Wilder and Adonis Stevenson failed to perform a mandatory defence of their WBC titles in more than two years even though contenders in their weight classes have engaged in title eliminators?

Yes, but you've hit the nail on the head though with your explanation. WBC have title eliminators, they wouldn't always always have them for the Interim title, the case for Povetkin vs. Stiverne makes sense as to why it's for the Interim title, same as Huck vs. Breidis. But WBA just take the piss, having it for the Interim title, it gets them more sanctioning fees.

WBC created the Silver title to kind of drift away from interim.

Ruthless-RKO wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:

Ruthless-RKO wrote: The Interim title is their eliminator, but they call it a world title which is annoying. Also holding the Interim title, they don't fight the regular champion until after 2 years, where as if you are a mandatory, you're next in line.

Doesn't all of the sports governing bodies occassionally have interim world champions? Also, hasn't fighters like Deontay Wilder and Adonis Stevenson failed to perform a mandatory defence of their WBC titles in more than two years even though contenders in their weight classes have engaged in title eliminators?

Yes, but you've hit the nail on the head though with your explanation. WBC have title eliminators, they wouldn't always always have them for the Interim title, the case for Povetkin vs. Stiverne makes sense as to why it's for the Interim title, same as Huck vs. Breidis. But WBA just take the piss, having it for the Interim title, it gets them more sanctioning fees.

WBC created the Silver title to kind of drift away from interim.

The WBA charge each fighter a 3% sanctioning fee for interim world title fights.

The IBF charge each fighter a 3% sanctioning fee if the total combined fight purses exceed $1m, regardless as to whether anything is on the line or not.

The WBC charge each fighter a 3% sanctioning fee for engaging in title eliminators.

Like I said before, the WBA deserve to be criticised, but so do the other organisations.

The ibf is the 'best' by a wide margin. They strictly adhere to their rules without bias for celebrity.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:The ibf is the 'best' by a wide margin. They strictly adhere to their rules without bias for celebrity.

I’m not so sure… the IBF have been guilty of making questionable decisions in the past, such as stripping Tyson Fury of his title immediately after he captured it, because they wanted him to fight Vyacheslav Glazkov instead of engaging in a rematch against Wladimir Klitschko… and this ultimately led to the appalling Charles Martin enjoying a world championship reign, one of the very worst champions in heavyweight history.

I also didn’t like the fact that they made Dominic Wade GGG’s mandatory, when he had literally accomplished nothing throughout his career.

Hasn't Artur Beterbiev competed and emerged victorious in IBF title eliminators against Gabriel Campillo and Tavoris Cloud, but he has yet to be given an opportunity to face their previous or current light heavyweight champions (Sergey Kovalev or Andre Ward)? Guess what? His next bout against Sullivan Barrera is also an IBF eliminator!

Finally, the IBF's strict administration of their rules (or complete lack of flexibility), coupled with their 10lb rehydration limit "morning of the fight" weigh-in rule, means that they tend to have the weakest set of champions from the main four governing bodies (certainly from the 140lbs weight class and below).

Does anyone really find the likes of Julius Indogo (Super-lightweight), Yukinori Oguni (Super-bantamweight) and Jerwin Acajas (Super-flyweight) impressive in comparison to the other guys competing in their respective weight classes?

You just solidified my point. Thanks dork.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:You just solidified my point. Thanks dork.

Learn to read.

If all ABCs were following their rules like IBF, it would be better for boxing. Cherry pickers would have nowhere to run.