BoxRec

The World Boxing Association made good on their November decision, as they stripped two-time Olympic gold medal winner Guillermo Rigondeaux (17-1, 11 KOs) of the WBA "super" title at 122-pounds.

Rigondeaux, who was facing a mandatory order to have a rematch with Moises Flores, applied for special permission to move up by two weight divisions to challenge WBO super featherweight champion Vasyl Lomachenko (10-1, 8 KOs) last month at The Theater in Madison Square Garden in New York City.

While the WBA approved his request, they also warned the Cuban boxer that he would be stripped of his world title if he was beaten. If he won, then Rigondeaux would have five days to make a decision regarding which world title he planned to keep.

The WBA has released their most recent ratings and Rigondeaux was officially removed from his world title position.
As it stands, Danny Roman - who previously held the WBA's "regular" title at the weight - is now the organization's full titleholder.

Roman will have to make, at some point, a mandatory defense against Flores, who has the interim-title - and that match has been ordered part of the World Boxing Association's effort to reduce the number of WBA world titles in each weight class.

"The special permission was requested, and [Rigondeaux] was given the opportunity because it is an important fight for boxing," stated WBA President Gilberto Mendoza Jr. last year.

"If he loses, he would then have to lose the recognition [of being WBA champion] because it is what corresponds [to agreement of allowing him to move up] and in this event we would have to order that Moises Flores goes against the winner of Daniel Román and an opponent to be supplied to us."

He isn't ranked in the TOP 15 at all. At least he is still the man to beat at 122.

Denis Lebedev was allowed to keep his WBA cruiserweight title after losing a cruiserweight fight against Murat Gassiev.

Guillermo Rigondeaux was stripped of his WBA super bantamweight title after losing a super featherweight fight against Vasyl Lomachenko.

Why didn't the interviewer ask the WBA President, Gilberto Mendoza Jr., the reason why his organisation's rules are being applied inconsistently?

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑02 Jan 2018, 06:14 Denis Lebedev was allowed to keep his WBA cruiserweight title after losing a cruiserweight fight against Murat Gassiev.

Guillermo Rigondeaux was stripped of his WBA super bantamweight title after losing a super featherweight fight against Vasyl Lomachenko.

Why didn't the interviewer ask the WBA President, Gilberto Mendoza Jr., the reason why his organisation's rules are being applied inconsistently?

They just wanted rid of Rigo I guess. Valid point though. Regardless of Loma vs. Rigo, it's unfair how WBA has treated him. He has been removed completely from any ranking.

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑02 Jan 2018, 06:14 Denis Lebedev was allowed to keep his WBA cruiserweight title after losing a cruiserweight fight against Murat Gassiev.

Guillermo Rigondeaux was stripped of his WBA super bantamweight title after losing a super featherweight fight against Vasyl Lomachenko.

Why didn't the interviewer ask the WBA President, Gilberto Mendoza Jr., the reason why his organisation's rules are being applied inconsistently?

I'd guess because Rigo had to ignore his mandatory in order to take the Lomachenko fight but Lebedev didn't?

I don't even know 100% if that's correct, but it's the only possible justification I can think of.

Is anyone surprised the WBA aren't consistent?

Deleted_Scenes wrote: ↑02 Jan 2018, 09:42

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑02 Jan 2018, 06:14 Denis Lebedev was allowed to keep his WBA cruiserweight title after losing a cruiserweight fight against Murat Gassiev.

Guillermo Rigondeaux was stripped of his WBA super bantamweight title after losing a super featherweight fight against Vasyl Lomachenko.

Why didn't the interviewer ask the WBA President, Gilberto Mendoza Jr., the reason why his organisation's rules are being applied inconsistently?

I'd guess because Rigo had to ignore his mandatory in order to take the Lomachenko fight but Lebedev didn't?

I don't even know 100% if that's correct, but it's the only possible justification I can think of.

Is anyone surprised the WBA aren't consistent?

Definitely did not ignore it. Mendoza said he allowed the Loma fight because it was good for boxing. But would only let him keep the title if he won..

Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑02 Jan 2018, 10:06

Deleted_Scenes wrote: ↑02 Jan 2018, 09:42

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑02 Jan 2018, 06:14 Denis Lebedev was allowed to keep his WBA cruiserweight title after losing a cruiserweight fight against Murat Gassiev.

Guillermo Rigondeaux was stripped of his WBA super bantamweight title after losing a super featherweight fight against Vasyl Lomachenko.

Why didn't the interviewer ask the WBA President, Gilberto Mendoza Jr., the reason why his organisation's rules are being applied inconsistently?

I'd guess because Rigo had to ignore his mandatory in order to take the Lomachenko fight but Lebedev didn't?

I don't even know 100% if that's correct, but it's the only possible justification I can think of.

Is anyone surprised the WBA aren't consistent?

Definitely did not ignore it. Mendoza said he allowed the Loma fight because it was good for boxing. But would only let him keep the title if he won..

Referring to the WBA's stance on the mandatory situation. I'm assuming Mendoza has every right to step aside, but I doubt a contender has any say at all over whether a champion gets to keep his belt or not AFTER agreeing to step aside.

It's a ridiculous situation, whatever is in the finer detail. I'm not even against Rigo being stripped (the IBF would certainly strip a fighter in the same situation, probably even if he won), it's just the message it sends out after allowing Lebedev to keep his...

Really, Lebedev should have been stripped, then this discussion wouldn't be happening.

Deleted_Scenes wrote: ↑02 Jan 2018, 10:37

Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑02 Jan 2018, 10:06

Deleted_Scenes wrote: ↑02 Jan 2018, 09:42

I'd guess because Rigo had to ignore his mandatory in order to take the Lomachenko fight but Lebedev didn't?

I don't even know 100% if that's correct, but it's the only possible justification I can think of.

Is anyone surprised the WBA aren't consistent?

Definitely did not ignore it. Mendoza said he allowed the Loma fight because it was good for boxing. But would only let him keep the title if he won..

It's a ridiculous situation, whatever is in the finer detail. I'm not even against Rigo being stripped (the IBF would certainly strip a fighter in the same situation, probably even if he won), it's just the message it sends out after allowing Lebedev to keep his...

IBF did not strip Brook. You can argue he never had a mandatory defence due.

Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑02 Jan 2018, 10:47

Deleted_Scenes wrote: ↑02 Jan 2018, 10:37

Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑02 Jan 2018, 10:06

Definitely did not ignore it. Mendoza said he allowed the Loma fight because it was good for boxing. But would only let him keep the title if he won..

It's a ridiculous situation, whatever is in the finer detail. I'm not even against Rigo being stripped (the IBF would certainly strip a fighter in the same situation, probably even if he won), it's just the message it sends out after allowing Lebedev to keep his...

IBF did not strip Brook. You can argue he never had a mandatory defence due.

Exactly. Where mandatories are due, they are the strictest out there. They stripped Fury about 5 minutes after he'd just beat Klitschko. They were going to strip Joshua too, if he fought a rematch with Wlad instead of Pulev.

They've stripped a few others over the years too, I think, going back to when they stripped Tito after he won a belt at 154 instead of defending at 147.

Considering Lebedev lost a fight in his own weight division and was allowed to keep his belt makes this look just absolutely ridiculous. WBA is probably one of the most corrupt organizations in sport let alone boxing. I would honestly suggest boxing writers and the boxing world to stop recognizing it as a legitimate belt.

The WBA are trash

9 out 10 people would still say the WBA title is better than the IBO title.

The WBA title should be the one not recognised.

Lennox wrote: ↑02 Jan 2018, 14:50 9 out 10 people would still say the WBA title is better than the IBO title.

The WBA title should be the one not recognised.

I'm one of those who believe that the fighters make the title. The title in itself doesn't define them.

Too many weight divisions and too many sanctioning bodies have devalued all the alphabet championships.

It doesn't matter if it's IBO or WBA, or whatever.

In this era, fans focus on the boxers, not who's world champion.

The titles are irrelevent but the sanctioning bodies seem oblivious to that.