BoxRec

ElJefe wrote: ↑20 Mar 2018, 17:39

Remember this

ElJefe wrote: ↑20 Mar 2018, 17:39

Remember this

T.M.K wrote: ↑20 Mar 2018, 16:54WBA: not reducing world titles anymore?

Just as they got to as many as 10 divisions with only a single world champion: the number are creeping up again...

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑13 Mar 2018, 06:54 On the 20th January, 2016, ESPN published an article claiming that the WBA were actively working on reducing the amount of world titleholders.

At that moment in time, 41 men held belts of various types (i.e. super, regular, unified and interim):

• Heavyweight: Tyson Fury; Ruslan Chagaev; Luis Ortiz
• Cruiserweight: Denis Lebedev; Beibut Shumenov
• Light heavyweight: Sergey Kovalev; Juergen Braehmer; Felix Valera
• Super middleweight: Fedor Chudinov; Giovanni De Carolis
• Middleweight: Gennady Golovkin; Daniel Jacobs; Alfonso Blanco
• Super welterweight: Erislandy Lara; Jack Culcay
• Welterweight: Keith Thurman; David Avanesyan
• Super lightweight: Adrien Broner; Jose Benavidez
• Lightweight: Anthony Crolla; Ismael Barroso
• Super featherweight: Takashi Uchiyama; Javier Fortuna; Jezreel Corrales
• Featherweight: Leo Santa Cruz; Jesus Andres Cuellar; Carlos Zambrano
• Super bantamweight: Scott Quigg; Moises Flores
• Bantamweight: Juan Carlos Payano; Jamie Mcdonnell; Zhanat Zhakiyanov
• Super flyweight: Kohei Kono; Luis Concepcion
• Flyweight: Juan Francisco Estrada; Kazuto Ioka; Yutthana Kaensa
• Light flyweight: Ryoichi Taguchi; Randy Petalcorin
• Minimumweight: Hekkie Budler; Thammanoon Niyomtrong

According to the same WBA website, as of February 2018, there are only 25 titleholders from their list of seventeen weight-classes, with Featherweight considered the “worst” division (i.e. super = Leo Santa Cruz; regular = Abner Mares; and interim = Jesus Rojas):

• Heavyweight: Anthony Joshua; Manuel Charr
• Cruiserweight: Murat Gassiev
• Light heavyweight: Dmitry Bivol
• Super middleweight: George Groves; Tyron Zeuge
• Middleweight: Gennady Golovkin; Ryota Murata
• Super welterweight: Erislandy Lara; Brian Carlos Castano
• Welterweight: Keith Thurman; Lucas Martin Matthysse
• Lightweight: Jorge Linares
• Super featherweight: Alberto Machado
• Featherweight: Leo Santa Cruz; Abner Mares; Jesus M Rojas
• Super bantamweight: Daniel Roman; Moises Flores
• Bantamweight: Ryan Burnett; Jamie Mcdonnell
• Super flyweight: Khalid Yafai
• Flyweight: Artem Dalakian
• Light flyweight: Ryoichi Taguchi
• Minimumweight: Thammanoon Niyomtrong

There used to be sixteen interim titleholders in January 2016, but now there are only two. Unfortunately, there is currently only one fewer “regular” champion than there was over the equivalent time frame.

Overall though, the situation has clearly improved significantly and no one can possibly deny that, but it’s also clear that WBA have failed to meet the expectations of fight fans.

candyslim wrote: ↑21 Mar 2018, 04:20They make the WBC look like a semi-legitimate enterprise. Well, comparatively anyway - I didn't mean to go overboard.

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑13 Mar 2018, 06:54That being said, the WBC probably have more so-called "champions" than the WBA currently has, but they have named their secondary titles differently (i.e. emeritus, diamond, silver etc.), so they shouldn't be immune from receiving criticism.

the_doctor wrote: ↑21 Mar 2018, 04:17
On that subject, why are the WBA so obsessed with Oquendo?

candyslim wrote: ↑21 Mar 2018, 04:20 They have been reducing World Titles for years ... usually to a laughing stock.

They make the WBC look like a semi-legitimate enterprise. Well, comparatively anyway - I didn't mean to go overboard.

candyslim wrote: ↑23 Mar 2018, 13:00 EO when I said about the WBC being the better (in the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king) I didn't mean that they had fewer titles necessarily, I did a comparison of the various alphabet orgs' heavyweight rankings a few weeks ago and started a thread on it (Rating the ratings I think I called it) and apart from the inexcusably shameful example of politics and cronyism in maintaining Stiverne as mandatory-for-life, or so it seemed, the rest of their top 15 was really quite respectable, whereas those of the WBA would cause anyone associated with them who had any integrity, unlikely as that may be, to fear they might die of shame.

I'm not just basing my judgement on the ratings either but the ratings are a highly visible billboard for each of the governing bodies.

I decided the WBA were a festering pile of shite back in the early seventies so when you say they failed to meet the fans' expectations, all I can say is that they have rarely failed to meet mine

candyslim wrote: ↑21 Mar 2018, 04:20 They have been reducing World Titles for years ... usually to a laughing stock.

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑23 Mar 2018, 14:13

candyslim wrote: ↑23 Mar 2018, 13:00 EO when I said about the WBC being the better (in the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king) I didn't mean that they had fewer titles necessarily, I did a comparison of the various alphabet orgs' heavyweight rankings a few weeks ago and started a thread on it (Rating the ratings I think I called it) and apart from the inexcusably shameful example of politics and cronyism in maintaining Stiverne as mandatory-for-life, or so it seemed, the rest of their top 15 was really quite respectable, whereas those of the WBA would cause anyone associated with them who had any integrity, unlikely as that may be, to fear they might die of shame.

I'm not just basing my judgement on the ratings either but the ratings are a highly visible billboard for each of the governing bodies.

I decided the WBA were a festering pile of shite back in the early seventies so when you say they failed to meet the fans' expectations, all I can say is that they have rarely failed to meet mine

My comments in relation to the WBA were in the context of the amount of so-called “champions” that they have (as per the thread title).

I haven’t defended them, but I do recognise that it is a statistical fact (that no one can deny) that they have significantly reduced the amount of titleholders, though they clearly haven’t gone far enough, since they're failing to meet the expectations of most fight fans.

The reason why I mentioned the WBC, is because they seem to regularly escape criticism… and for some strange reason, no one seems to pay attention to the amount of belts they dish out, despite the following lists being rather lengthy…

Here's a list of the WBC's "Emeritus" champions:

• Vitali Klitschko
• Tony Bellew
• Floyd Mayweather [Twice Over - 147lbs & 154lbs]

Here's a list of the WBC's "Diamond" champions:

• Sergey Kovalev
• Callum Smith
• Mikey Garcia
• Jorge Linares
• Leo Santa Cruz

Here's a list of the WBC's "Silver" champions:

• Dillian Whyte
• Maxim Vlasov
• Roberto Garcia
• Kell Brook
• Josh Taylor
• Jon Fernandez
• Nonito Donaire
• Julio Ceja
• Nordine Ouabaali
• Mcwilliams Arroyo
• Gilberto Parra

Here's a list of the WBC's "International" champions:

• Constantin Bejenaru
• Avni Yildirim
• Karim Achour
• Ismail Iiiev
• Thulani Mbenge
• Champion
• Hurricane Futa
• Bekman Soylybayev
• Gavin Mcdonnell
• Duke Micah
• Vacant
• Jonathan Inguito Taconing
• Deejay Kriel

I rarely formulate an opinion without researching my claims, but it really does amaze me to see other people harshly criticising the WBA, but somehow remain strangely mute on the WBC’s practices, despite the behaviour of both organisations being very similar in nature!

Deleted_Scenes wrote: ↑24 Mar 2018, 06:26

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑23 Mar 2018, 14:13

candyslim wrote: ↑23 Mar 2018, 13:00 EO when I said about the WBC being the better (in the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king) I didn't mean that they had fewer titles necessarily, I did a comparison of the various alphabet orgs' heavyweight rankings a few weeks ago and started a thread on it (Rating the ratings I think I called it) and apart from the inexcusably shameful example of politics and cronyism in maintaining Stiverne as mandatory-for-life, or so it seemed, the rest of their top 15 was really quite respectable, whereas those of the WBA would cause anyone associated with them who had any integrity, unlikely as that may be, to fear they might die of shame.

I'm not just basing my judgement on the ratings either but the ratings are a highly visible billboard for each of the governing bodies.

I decided the WBA were a festering pile of shite back in the early seventies so when you say they failed to meet the fans' expectations, all I can say is that they have rarely failed to meet mine

My comments in relation to the WBA were in the context of the amount of so-called “champions” that they have (as per the thread title).

I haven’t defended them, but I do recognise that it is a statistical fact (that no one can deny) that they have significantly reduced the amount of titleholders, though they clearly haven’t gone far enough, since they're failing to meet the expectations of most fight fans.

The reason why I mentioned the WBC, is because they seem to regularly escape criticism… and for some strange reason, no one seems to pay attention to the amount of belts they dish out, despite the following lists being rather lengthy…

Here's a list of the WBC's "Emeritus" champions:

• Vitali Klitschko
• Tony Bellew
• Floyd Mayweather [Twice Over - 147lbs & 154lbs]

Here's a list of the WBC's "Diamond" champions:

• Sergey Kovalev
• Callum Smith
• Mikey Garcia
• Jorge Linares
• Leo Santa Cruz

Here's a list of the WBC's "Silver" champions:

• Dillian Whyte
• Maxim Vlasov
• Roberto Garcia
• Kell Brook
• Josh Taylor
• Jon Fernandez
• Nonito Donaire
• Julio Ceja
• Nordine Ouabaali
• Mcwilliams Arroyo
• Gilberto Parra

Here's a list of the WBC's "International" champions:

• Constantin Bejenaru
• Avni Yildirim
• Karim Achour
• Ismail Iiiev
• Thulani Mbenge
• Champion
• Hurricane Futa
• Bekman Soylybayev
• Gavin Mcdonnell
• Duke Micah
• Vacant
• Jonathan Inguito Taconing
• Deejay Kriel

I rarely formulate an opinion without researching my claims, but it really does amaze me to see other people harshly criticising the WBA, but somehow remain strangely mute on the WBC’s practices, despite the behaviour of both organisations being very similar in nature!

I think the difference between the WBC and WBA comes down to wording.

Although the extra WBC belts are still a shameful excuse for collecting extra fees, they are clearly (by their names) NOT actual WORLD titles (although their Diamond belt is becoming way overused). Silver world titles and international titles clearly refer to being lower tier trinkets, just by their names.

On to the WBA:

Their 2nd tier belt is called the WBA WORLD championship - hence the disgust from fans.

The 3rd tier belt is called the interim WORLD championship - 'interim' is supposed to mean you're the man for now, until the actual champ gets back from injury (or something similar). It's supposed to refer to a legit world title, with a caveat of facing the injured champion on his return. It's not meant to be a permanent title.

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑24 Mar 2018, 06:46

Deleted_Scenes wrote: ↑24 Mar 2018, 06:26

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑23 Mar 2018, 14:13
My comments in relation to the WBA were in the context of the amount of so-called “champions” that they have (as per the thread title).

I haven’t defended them, but I do recognise that it is a statistical fact (that no one can deny) that they have significantly reduced the amount of titleholders, though they clearly haven’t gone far enough, since they're failing to meet the expectations of most fight fans.

The reason why I mentioned the WBC, is because they seem to regularly escape criticism… and for some strange reason, no one seems to pay attention to the amount of belts they dish out, despite the following lists being rather lengthy…

Here's a list of the WBC's "Emeritus" champions:

• Vitali Klitschko
• Tony Bellew
• Floyd Mayweather [Twice Over - 147lbs & 154lbs]

Here's a list of the WBC's "Diamond" champions:

• Sergey Kovalev
• Callum Smith
• Mikey Garcia
• Jorge Linares
• Leo Santa Cruz

Here's a list of the WBC's "Silver" champions:

• Dillian Whyte
• Maxim Vlasov
• Roberto Garcia
• Kell Brook
• Josh Taylor
• Jon Fernandez
• Nonito Donaire
• Julio Ceja
• Nordine Ouabaali
• Mcwilliams Arroyo
• Gilberto Parra

Here's a list of the WBC's "International" champions:

• Constantin Bejenaru
• Avni Yildirim
• Karim Achour
• Ismail Iiiev
• Thulani Mbenge
• Champion
• Hurricane Futa
• Bekman Soylybayev
• Gavin Mcdonnell
• Duke Micah
• Vacant
• Jonathan Inguito Taconing
• Deejay Kriel

I rarely formulate an opinion without researching my claims, but it really does amaze me to see other people harshly criticising the WBA, but somehow remain strangely mute on the WBC’s practices, despite the behaviour of both organisations being very similar in nature!

I think the difference between the WBC and WBA comes down to wording.

Although the extra WBC belts are still a shameful excuse for collecting extra fees, they are clearly (by their names) NOT actual WORLD titles (although their Diamond belt is becoming way overused). Silver world titles and international titles clearly refer to being lower tier trinkets, just by their names.

On to the WBA:

Their 2nd tier belt is called the WBA WORLD championship - hence the disgust from fans.

The 3rd tier belt is called the interim WORLD championship - 'interim' is supposed to mean you're the man for now, until the actual champ gets back from injury (or something similar). It's supposed to refer to a legit world title, with a caveat of facing the injured champion on his return. It's not meant to be a permanent title.

I agree about the wording being the main reason why fans aren't as critical of the WBC than they are with the WBA, but let's not forget that the Diamond belt is deemed as being the "biggest honour the WBC can grant." Their words, not mine.

They've also described the Silver belt in a similar manner in the past.

The WBC are doing the very same thing as the WBA, but they're clever enough to use synonyms (in the context of status) for the word "world" for their other "most prestigious" titles.

I doubt that fight fans actually understand the purpose of the WBC's Silver and Diamond belts, hence the lack of controversy.

Deleted_Scenes wrote: ↑24 Mar 2018, 09:14

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑24 Mar 2018, 06:46

Deleted_Scenes wrote: ↑24 Mar 2018, 06:26

I think the difference between the WBC and WBA comes down to wording.

Although the extra WBC belts are still a shameful excuse for collecting extra fees, they are clearly (by their names) NOT actual WORLD titles (although their Diamond belt is becoming way overused). Silver world titles and international titles clearly refer to being lower tier trinkets, just by their names.

On to the WBA:

Their 2nd tier belt is called the WBA WORLD championship - hence the disgust from fans.

The 3rd tier belt is called the interim WORLD championship - 'interim' is supposed to mean you're the man for now, until the actual champ gets back from injury (or something similar). It's supposed to refer to a legit world title, with a caveat of facing the injured champion on his return. It's not meant to be a permanent title.

I agree about the wording being the main reason why fans aren't as critical of the WBC than they are with the WBA, but let's not forget that the Diamond belt is deemed as being the "biggest honour the WBC can grant." Their words, not mine.

They've also described the Silver belt in a similar manner in the past.

The WBC are doing the very same thing as the WBA, but they're clever enough to use synonyms (in the context of status) for the word "world" for their other "most prestigious" titles.

I doubt that fight fans actually understand the purpose of the WBC's Silver and Diamond belts, hence the lack of controversy.

I agree with that. It's all semantics really, and I don't like either the WBC or WBA way of doing things. The WBC are just a bit more sneaky about the way they go about raking in the extra dough.

I don't like the IBF way of having permanent vacant top contenders either, thinking about it.