is the wba still worthy of its status as one of the most pretegious world titles?
is the wba still worthy of its status as one of the most pretegious world titles?
im not so sure, 3 champs in each division? does it now mean anything to be wba world champ when there is a super champ
Now I'[m all for there being more than one association at the top, spreads the wealth, helps more fighters make a living out of the sport, but more than one champ in a single governing body?
if your not the best in the world how can you be the world champ?
Re: is the wba still worthy of its status as one of the most pretegious world titles?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
is the wba still worthy of its status as one of the most pretegious world titles?
im not so sure, 3 champs in each division? does it now mean anything to be wba world champ when there is a super champ
Now I'[m all for there being more than one association at the top, spreads the wealth, helps more fighters make a living out of the sport, but more than one champ in a single governing body?
if your not the best in the world how can you be the world champ?
To answer the main question, I think that they are holding onto what credibility they have left due to it's longevity and history in the sport. They are making a mockery of the sport now and it's not fair on fans or fighters. IMO they don't deserve their status will keep it due to the fact they are the original governing body.
I'm not sure I agree with you wanting more than one association at the top though. For me an ideal situation would be for all bodied to be taken over by an organization that want the best fighter in each division to be champ and that would be determined by making all current champs fight each other until we have only one champ in each division. I know that is never going to happen but it is the ideal situation in boxing for me.
Re: is the wba still worthy of its status as one of the most pretegious world titles?
A lot of people have the opinion that there should be one champ in each division and i can understand that view point
i just think the training a boxer does, the blood sweat and tears far outweights that that is require for most other sports and in general the financial rewards are small in comparison
only a small number of boxers make good money and enough to support themselves after retirement
limiting the sport to 1 governing body would reduce this lucky few even further
from that point of view I think having more than one "recognised" governing body with a single world champion in each is good for boxers, and presents more chances to more fighters to earn what they deserve
Re: is the wba still worthy of its status as one of the most pretegious world titles?
The WBA?? I thought you were talking about the WBC! They have in certain cases 3 champs in a division too. Look at the middleweight division there. You have the linear champ Sergio Martinez whose belt can be traced back to the unifications ten years ago of the wbc, wna and ibf titles. Sergio is now super champ and JCC Jr is the regular champ and they may have an interim champ maybe. So both theWBC and WBA are about the same in irrelevancy.
Re: is the wba still worthy of its status as one of the most pretegious world titles?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
is the wba still worthy of its status as one of the most pretegious world titles?
im not so sure, 3 champs in each division? does it now mean anything to be wba world champ when there is a super champ
Now I'[m all for there being more than one association at the top, spreads the wealth, helps more fighters make a living out of the sport, but more than one champ in a single governing body?
if your not the best in the world how can you be the world champ?
You don't want to start with Bilbo on this.
Re: is the wba still worthy of its status as one of the most pretegious world titles?
That's why Povetkin isnt a real champ. WHoever is their top guy should be considered a champ. Same goes with the WBC
Re: is the wba still worthy of its status as one of the most pretegious world titles?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
gest12645
That's why Povetkin isnt a real champ. WHoever is their top guy should be considered a champ. Same goes with the WBC
does the WBA world championship belt still mean anything?
Re: is the wba still worthy of its status as one of the most pretegious world titles?
Quote:
Now I'[m all for there being more than one association at the top, spreads the wealth, helps more fighters make a living out of the sport, but more than one champ in a single governing body?
.........can't have your cake and eat it too.
Re: is the wba still worthy of its status as one of the most pretegious world titles?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
Quote:
Now I'[m all for there being more than one association at the top, spreads the wealth, helps more fighters make a living out of the sport, but more than one champ in a single governing body?
.........can't have your cake and eat it too.
ahhh a post with a little bit of thought
I can see that there could be a contradiction in my openning post, but if a governing body has a single champ then it is clear who the governing body sees as the best
a battle for supremacey between the governing bodies is different than multiple champions within the same association
Re: is the wba still worthy of its status as one of the most pretegious world titles?
well that makes sense I guess. Its all such political corruption anyway. No contradiction in your opener, Im just pointing out that once you have the diversificatio there with the alphabet soup bodies, youre automatically then going to have more nonsense, i.e. multiple belts per body, which is absurd, but it comes with the purchase.
Re: is the wba still worthy of its status as one of the most pretegious world titles?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rjj tszyu
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
is the wba still worthy of its status as one of the most pretegious world titles?
im not so sure, 3 champs in each division? does it now mean anything to be wba world champ when there is a super champ
Now I'[m all for there being more than one association at the top, spreads the wealth, helps more fighters make a living out of the sport, but more than one champ in a single governing body?
if your not the best in the world how can you be the world champ?
To answer the main question, I think that they are holding onto what credibility they have left due to it's longevity and history in the sport. They are making a mockery of the sport now and it's not fair on fans or fighters. IMO they don't deserve their status will keep it due to the fact they are the original governing body.
I'm not sure I agree with you wanting more than one association at the top though. For me an ideal situation would be for all bodied to be taken over by an organization that want the best fighter in each division to be champ and that would be determined by making all current champs fight each other until we have only one champ in each division. I know that is never going to happen but it is the ideal situation in boxing for me.
I agree about the one world champ. In reality there can only be one. Not two, three or four world champs. Doesn't make sense.
