The Hype has started: Do you think Golovkin is on 20 defences?

[T.M.K]

Hi all,

I'm sorry - but for me the WBA two-tier system has to be remembered: Golovkin was not the proper WBA champion until Geale vacated the Super-title. His first defence was when he defended against Rosado.

He's currently on 15, in my book.

There's so many weird ones in his resume, different belts not on the line or opponents overweight etc, but I cannot include Golovkin's Interim or Regular title fights when there was a more senior WBA champion present (not saying he wouldn't have beaten Sturm or Geale, but that's not the point).

"T.M.K"

[URL]https://fightnews.com/golovkin-equals-h ... ense/20890[URL/]

[Perseus]

Over the years I have been very, very critical of the WBA and their two or three title system.
If I recognize all of the GGG defenses of WBA consolation belts while simultaneously trashing every other fighter holding and defending such belts,...,........that would be very, very hypocritical on my part.
After so many years of talking down the multiple WBA title mess I can't say he has 20 defenses but I won't argue with someone who says he does.

[SenorPipino]

Ali was 4 time heavyweight champion of the world. He also beat Terrell for the WBA (not regular) title.

If you don't agree with that, then you have no business crediting Golovkin with 20 actual defenses because he won a coveted interim title and something called the "regular title."

But in this era, fans aren't picky or knowledgeable and readily accept watered down, laughable versions of a world championship as the real thing.

[gilgamesh]

19 by my count

[jamamb]

how 19?

[DA1]

A title defense is a title defense. Now whether you consider him a champion or not (at that time) is subjective. But he defended it, and people wanted that title just as much as the Super title. Anyone who wants the Super belt will fight for the Regular belt just to get that promotion or 2nd title opportunity.

Blame the WBA, not Golovkin. The system is fk'ed. It would be different if the EBU and JBC put their hammers down and refused to recognize WBA Regular/Super titles, thereby preventing any money to be collected from the E.U. or Japan by the WBA. Then they would have fixed their ways a decade ago.

[fanman]

yea, come on there cant be 2 proper wba champions at a time can there. otherwise we have to say munuel charr is one of the heavyweight champs of the world, so i agree with the op.

[boxing_rocks]

how 19?

He probably doesn't count Nilson Julio Tapia fight where Golvkin won the WBA regular title. People counting 20 defenses, count that one as the first one, because Golovkin already had an interim title.

[boxing_rocks]

So WBA promoted Sturm to a Super Champion to allow him to not defend against Golovkin, and somehow it is Golovkin's fault now? If only one of those champions was real, it was Golovkin, not Sturm.

[SenorPipino]

You would think with all the belts available and different levels of world championships within the same division (interim, regular, super) there would be plenty fightersracking up a record number of defenses.

It should all be ignored. Just a sanctioning fee money grab, creating bogus records.

[gilgamesh]

how 19?

He probably doesn't count Nilson Julio Tapia fight where Golvkin won the WBA regular title. People counting 20 defenses, count that one as the first one, because Golovkin already had an interim title.

Yep, that's how 19

[Kalan]

He's currently on 15, in my book.

Nope... He has 20 Title Defenses... He could have beaten any Middleweight in the World for his entire reign... Hopkins didn't consolidate his World Titles until very late either and beat some stink-pot challengers along the way.

Golovkin will break the record all to Hell and then move up to 168... He's the best Middleweight so far.

[Lenny Cravats]

How many wins has he had when he was ranked No 1 in the Division?

[DA1]

yea, come on there cant be 2 proper wba champions at a time can there. otherwise we have to say munuel charr is one of the heavyweight champs of the world, so i agree with the op.

And what about Joseph Parker as heavyweight champ, you counted that or ignored that too?

[Mexi-Box]

Sturm, Martinez, and Geale wanted nothing to do with Golovkin on his way up. Blame them, not him. Golovkin is on track to surpass Hopkins as the best MW, deal with it haters.

[ElJefe]

I'm having trouble remembering what the deal was with the belts so I'm going to try and figure this out with the help of BoxRec. Bear with me.

BoxRec has Golovkin defending the WBA 'Regular' title from 2010, before eventually fighting for the 'Super' title in 2014 when he beat Geale. In that time (2010-14), Felix Sturm had been defending the 'Super' title, before losing it to Geale in September 2012, who in beating Sturm had unified the IBF and WBA titles. As a result, at this time GGG was only the WBA's '2nd tier' champion and his defences won't be counted.

The next fight that took place for the WBA 'Super' title was Golovkin-Geale in summer 2014. It seems that Geale vacated the 'Super' title after defeating Sturm while holding onto IBF belt, which was later lost to Barker and eventually ended up finding its way to GGG via Lemieux.

Given that Geale seemed to vacate the WBA 'Super' title in September 2012, its odd that all 3 of Golovkin's defences in 2013 (Ishida, Macklin and Stevens) were still listed as being for the 'Regular' title. Although its unofficial I'd consider Golovkin the WBA's top tier champion as soon as Geale vacated.

Therefore I've got every defence since (and including) Ishida in March 2013 counting towards Golvokin's tally. That puts him on 14 title defences.

[SFW]

I think the X amount of defenses he has, or people want to credit him with, are arguments distracting from the important factors. It's obvious he's been the best middleweight for 7-8 years and with none of the champions willing to fight him he didn't get the chance to prove it early on. Whatever rinky dink abc belt he had or didn't have is a side note. Call it 20, call it 14, doesn't matter. He is the best middleweight of his era, and he's not done yet. "20" defenses sounds like an HBO selling point more than a historical achievement anyway. It's about far more than just a number.

[fanman]

yea, come on there cant be 2 proper wba champions at a time can there. otherwise we have to say munuel charr is one of the heavyweight champs of the world, so i agree with the op.

And what about Joseph Parker as heavyweight champ, you counted that or ignored that too?

i suppose they're all paper belts until someone marks his name in the sand as the no.1 . i guess ggg can claim 19 defenses with an asterik. it doesnt mean much. its not like when hagler won the world title outright.

[DA1]

yea, come on there cant be 2 proper wba champions at a time can there. otherwise we have to say munuel charr is one of the heavyweight champs of the world, so i agree with the op.

And what about Joseph Parker as heavyweight champ, you counted that or ignored that too?

i suppose they're all paper belts until someone marks his name in the sand as the no.1 . i guess ggg can claim 19 defenses with an asterik. it doesnt mean much. its not like when hagler won the world title outright.

Since they're all paper belts, which they are. I don't see where we make the quality distinction where its acceptable and recognized to be a champion of multiple separate orgs vs the same org. If we accept the idea of there being multiple champs, I don't see why we draw the line at "each body gets one champ....but its fine to form another body and have another champ." I don't agree with the WBA having multiple champs at all, but I see no reason why GGG's defenses won't count.

[Deleted_Scenes]

And what about Joseph Parker as heavyweight champ, you counted that or ignored that too?

i suppose they're all paper belts until someone marks his name in the sand as the no.1 . i guess ggg can claim 19 defenses with an asterik. it doesnt mean much. its not like when hagler won the world title outright.

Since they're all paper belts, which they are. I don't see where we make the quality distinction where its acceptable and recognized to be a champion of multiple separate orgs vs the same org. If we accept the idea of there being multiple champs, I don't see why we draw the line at "each body gets one champ....but its fine to form another body and have another champ." I don't agree with the WBA having multiple champs at all, but I see no reason why GGG's defenses won't count.

I see it like this:

The WBC, by awarding their belt, are saying "this guy is the best in the world at this weight".

The IBF, by awarding their belt, are also saying "this guy is the best in the world at this weight".

If the two then meet in the ring and settle things, you can pick a genuine champion, but until then, you accept both equally.

With the WBA, it's different. By awarding their regular belt, what they're really saying is "this guy is the best in the world at this weight... err, except for that other guy who we've given a better belt to".

By their own admission, where a WBA Super champion exists, the WBA regular champion is NOT the best in the division. That's why a ton of people (including myself) don't recognise the holder as a legit world champion.

In Joseph Parker's case, although Joshua held 2 belts, and most people think Wilder is better too, the WBO (one of the 4 major governing bodies) by recognising Parker as their champion were still saying "this guy is who we see as the best in the world". Even if we as fans don't believe it's true, until a unification gets made, it's generally still respected.

[DA1]

i suppose they're all paper belts until someone marks his name in the sand as the no.1 . i guess ggg can claim 19 defenses with an asterik. it doesnt mean much. its not like when hagler won the world title outright.

Since they're all paper belts, which they are. I don't see where we make the quality distinction where its acceptable and recognized to be a champion of multiple separate orgs vs the same org. If we accept the idea of there being multiple champs, I don't see why we draw the line at "each body gets one champ....but its fine to form another body and have another champ." I don't agree with the WBA having multiple champs at all, but I see no reason why GGG's defenses won't count.

I see it like this:

The WBC, by awarding their belt, are saying "this guy is the best in the world at this weight".

The IBF, by awarding their belt, are also saying "this guy is the best in the world at this weight".

If the two then meet in the ring and settle things, you can pick a genuine champion, but until then, you accept both equally.

With the WBA, it's different. By awarding their regular belt, what they're really saying is "this guy is the best in the world at this weight... err, except for that other guy who we've given a better belt to".

By their own admission, where a WBA Super champion exists, the WBA regular champion is NOT the best in the division. That's why a ton of people (including myself) don't recognise the holder as a legit world champion.

In Joseph Parker's case, although Joshua held 2 belts, and most people think Wilder is better too, the WBO (one of the 4 major governing bodies) by recognising Parker as their champion were still saying "this guy is who we see as the best in the world". Even if we as fans don't believe it's true, until a unification gets made, it's generally still respected.

If that were the case, why even recognize more than 1 belt holder? If the issue is about being #1, and there can only be one #1, other champs shouldn't be accepted, period. But then it becomes subjective like "Well who's the #1". And no, I don't believe the WBA is tell you X is number 1 and Y is number 2. They simply recognize a unified champ as Super, but the non-unified as also World champ. They're basically using the same logic that people already use when dealing with multiple champs, and using it to turn an extra buck.

The moment you recognize a second champion, you're opening yourself to not question if the same body has multiple champs (unfortunately). The WBA doesn't rank the Regular beltholder as #1 ranked contender with Super as champ; they count both as Champ, with the #1 ranked contender being someone else below the two.

[Deleted_Scenes]

Since they're all paper belts, which they are. I don't see where we make the quality distinction where its acceptable and recognized to be a champion of multiple separate orgs vs the same org. If we accept the idea of there being multiple champs, I don't see why we draw the line at "each body gets one champ....but its fine to form another body and have another champ." I don't agree with the WBA having multiple champs at all, but I see no reason why GGG's defenses won't count.

I see it like this:

The WBC, by awarding their belt, are saying "this guy is the best in the world at this weight".

The IBF, by awarding their belt, are also saying "this guy is the best in the world at this weight".

If the two then meet in the ring and settle things, you can pick a genuine champion, but until then, you accept both equally.

With the WBA, it's different. By awarding their regular belt, what they're really saying is "this guy is the best in the world at this weight... err, except for that other guy who we've given a better belt to".

By their own admission, where a WBA Super champion exists, the WBA regular champion is NOT the best in the division. That's why a ton of people (including myself) don't recognise the holder as a legit world champion.

In Joseph Parker's case, although Joshua held 2 belts, and most people think Wilder is better too, the WBO (one of the 4 major governing bodies) by recognising Parker as their champion were still saying "this guy is who we see as the best in the world". Even if we as fans don't believe it's true, until a unification gets made, it's generally still respected.

If that were the case, why even recognize more than 1 belt holder? If the issue is about being #1, and there can only be one #1, other champs shouldn't be accepted, period. But then it becomes subjective like "Well who's the #1". And no, I don't believe the WBA is tell you X is number 1 and Y is number 2. They simply recognize a unified champ as Super, but the non-unified as also World champ. They're basically using the same logic that people already use when dealing with multiple champs, and using it to turn an extra buck.

The moment you recognize a second champion, you're opening yourself to not question if the same body has multiple champs (unfortunately). The WBA doesn't rank the Regular beltholder as #1 ranked contender with Super as champ; they count both as Champ, with the #1 ranked contender being someone else below the two.

That's not true anymore. The WBA has a ton of super champions who have never unified titles. They actually are saying "this guy is number 1, that guy is number 1 if the other guy didn't exist... so actually number 2, but shhh fees *cough cough*".

Why do they do it? Twice the champions, twice the fees, not that they would admit that.

They do technically claim both are "champions", with mandatories for both, but they are very clear that the super champion is superior, and there have been some instances where they have made the regular champion mandatory challenger to the super champion.

It's a total shambles, but that's boxing these days unfortunately. What matters is the WBA themselves, recognise their regular title as inferior to the super title.

[DA1]

If that were the case, why even recognize more than 1 belt holder? If the issue is about being #1, and there can only be one #1, other champs shouldn't be accepted, period. But then it becomes subjective like "Well who's the #1". And no, I don't believe the WBA is tell you X is number 1 and Y is number 2. They simply recognize a unified champ as Super, but the non-unified as also World champ. They're basically using the same logic that people already use when dealing with multiple champs, and using it to turn an extra buck.

The moment you recognize a second champion, you're opening yourself to not question if the same body has multiple champs (unfortunately). The WBA doesn't rank the Regular beltholder as #1 ranked contender with Super as champ; they count both as Champ, with the #1 ranked contender being someone else below the two.

That's not true anymore. The WBA has a ton of super champions who have never unified titles. They actually are saying "this guy is number 1, that guy is number 1 if the other guy didn't exist... so actually number 2, but shhh fees *cough cough*".

Why do they do it? Twice the champions, twice the fees, not that they would admit that.

They do technically claim both are "champions", with mandatories for both, but they are very clear that the super champion is superior, and there have been some instances where they have made the regular champion mandatory challenger to the super champion.

It's a total shambles, but that's boxing these days unfortunately. What matters is the WBA themselves, recognise their regular title as inferior to the super title.

You can inherit a Super title, but when there is none, the World title is their top belt. The Regular belt is their World belt. They carry the same lineage, and at the end of the day we're arguing about that lineage/name. Because if you really wanna who the top champion is the letters/name wouldn't even matter–which then makes counting defenses pointless as well. Every fighter has defenses where they clearly weren't the top guy or their opponent wasn't the top or second-top guy. We count an arbitrary number of belt defenses so the distinction between belt 1 and belt 2 is arbitrary and ill-defined as well.

Blame the WBA, not the boxer. I don't see it as his fault, he had to defend his belt before the "top" Super titleist would fight him. To me that's the same as any other belt holder. Except there's a clear case to be made where he was better than some of his fellow belt-owning contemporaries. Not fair if a better guy's defenses don't count but the less-renowned one's does.

[Deleted_Scenes]

Blame the WBA, not the boxer.

I have absolutely no problem doing that.

The rest of your point is perfectly valid. It's just a matter of differing opinions, that's all. It's difficult to know what the right answer is in boxing, with how disorganised everything is. I'm in my 30s, so never lived through the days of one champion, but that way seems to make a lot more sense.

I'm not overly bothered how many defences someone made anyway. Unifying all the belts is a much bigger achievement than defending one of the four a bunch of times, but it's who you beat that matters most of all.

[DA1]

Blame the WBA, not the boxer.

I have absolutely no problem doing that.

The rest of your point is perfectly valid. It's just a matter of differing opinions, that's all. It's difficult to know what the right answer is in boxing, with how disorganised everything is. I'm in my 30s, so never lived through the days of one champion, but that way seems to make a lot more sense.

I'm not overly bothered how many defences someone made anyway. Unifying all the belts is a much bigger achievement than defending one of the four a bunch of times, but it's who you beat that matters most of all.

Not that I ever want a single title,* I agree with you that unifying the belts is a bigger accomplishment. Especially if you're the one who gets the ball rolling. I don't see winning a pre-existing undisputed title, or one where one guys bring 2-3 to the table and the other brings one (and the mandatory defense disparity between the two) as being of equal footing. Plus, styles make fights afterall. You could beat THE guy but that doesn't mean you could have every guy HE fought.

*A single title works if only a few countries compete for it, the USSR and half the world weren't even trying to win a belt. Things have changed. Pro boxing is very much political: what promoter you're signed to and what their relation is with one or more of the major sanctioning bodies. Which inturn has a lot to do with what country you're from (i.e., Mexico, US and UK have a clear advantage over other countries in professional boxing in receiving title shots, especially repeat TS). The governing bodies simply can't or won't accommodate all fighters of the various regions of the world fairly (there's a reason why IBO is heavily active in Africa; whereas IBF is nonexistent there or in Latin America outside Argentina; the WBO has a minimal presence in Africa as well). Iran and Cuba are huge wrestling powers, but you won't see too many of them in MMA. Similarly, Cuba and Central-Asian republics are huge boxing powers, but you never saw many of them until recently. But their track records in the amateurs/Olympics speak for themselves.