The running joke of WBO mandatories

jomothepure · Post by **jomothepure** » 21 Jan 2007, 13:39

I was just thinking about Calzaghe's path after the Manfredo fight, and stupidly considered the fact that Calzaghe might even have to fulfill a mandatory soon, as it will soon be two years since he last did so (Veit.)

But looking at the WBO regulations, their rules regarding enforcing of mandaotires is so ambiguous, and basically so lame and we'll-kiss-your-arse-if-you-pay-us that it's untrue.

As a "super champion" (nothing necessarily to do with unifying, but 10 defenses is another qualification) Joe may extend the time period for his mandatory fulfillments "one or more times beyond the time provided for in the WBO Regulations for World Championship Contests for the purpose of giving a Super Champion opportunity or opportunities to unify the titles of more than one major sanctioning body either in a unification bout or a unification tournament, or any other important match or matches that the Committee determines would contribute to the Super Champion’s legacy or would be of great interest to boxing fans."

So Joe, Frank and the WBO just need to tell us Joe Spina or whoever is of great interest to us and that's it?

At least the other 3 keep up the pretence.

steve689 · Post by **steve689** » 23 Jan 2007, 14:50

Ha ha it would be even funnier if it wasn't so true

dondada · Post by **dondada** » 24 Jan 2007, 10:27

Very good spot, Jomo.

They really are a complete load of bollocks. The lot of em.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 24 Jan 2007, 10:46

Christ, what a fekking joke. I would need to check, but as far as I know the other sanctioning bodies stipulate a maximum of 18 months between defences for a super champ or champion emeritus.

It's bloody pathetic, and rather pokes fun at the notion that the WBO are just as legitimate as the other sanctioning bodies.

Taki... · Post by **Taki...** » 24 Jan 2007, 13:15

Trouble is many of the WBO's mandatory challengers are jokes anyway. They might occasionally throw someone in who would be a bit of a sanctioning fee cash cow (JMM), but otherwise it's hardly worth them enforcing their mandatories.

JC · Post by JC » 24 Jan 2007, 13:21

Kind of sinks the whole "it's the champion that makes the belt" bollocks people often trot out to justify Calzaghe only having the WBO belt to show for his troubles.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 24 Jan 2007, 13:39

Yes, Warren has tried many times to say that the WBO is as good as any of the other belts, but with that ruling, that is patently not the case. It basically means their ratings and madatories are completely arbitrary and open to persuasion. Not that of course the others aren't, but at least they have rules that suggest the contrary and which they may occasionally abide by.