Intercontinental Championships and title rank

There will always be a World Champion. There will always be "second best".

The WBA is using its "regular" title to signify "second best"

The WBC is using its "silver" belt for the same thing.

The IBF is sparing itself the embarrassment and not using anything.

Nobody gives a **** about the WBO.

All of those organizations have an Intercontinental/International Championship, which by its own name, means that you are better than regional or national, but not quite world level.

The only recent Intercon Champion I can remember who was legitimately at that level and fighting his way forward, was Adamek.

It seems to me that the Inter. Champ should be fighting to show he's the best challenger available for the World Title, yet nobody uses this belt for that reason.

Why not create some exciting meaningful contender fights between the #4 - #10 ranked guys instead of having guys languish in the Top 10 waiting to get to the front of the line?

Thoughts?

 

Looks like we all basically agree on the rankings of the belts.

World
Intercon
Regional/Continental - NA, Latin, EU, Commonwealth/British
National - English, USBA, Canadian, Cuban, African, Aussie
State/Local

However, in my opinion, the World Champion should only be able to fight the Intercon Champion.

The loser becomes the Intercon champion and the Regional/Continental guys battle it out continuously in hopes of becoming the mandatory.

That way, the bottom 8 guys in the top 10 will always be fighting each other, and will have to go through the previous champion to get the Intercon Title and become the mandatory. Also, it means that if you are the champ and you lose, that if you beat the #1 contender then you get a rematch for the World Title.

To me, that is exactly the way it should be. The best fighting the best. It would also unify and reestablish a lineal champion.

 

Its an interim belt. You can't have two guys fighting for a belt when a third guy is holding the belt already.

Example: Chagaev vs. Povetkin for the WBA "regular title" while Wlad currently holds the "Super" title. :roll:

 

Obviously, because the WBA is a total joke.

Typically everyone agrees that The Ring is the most accurate, but of the sanctioning bodies:

IBF is the best because they don't have bull**** titles and the rankings are believeable.

WBC has OK rankings but so many bull**** titles that they are a circus act.

WBO rankings usually suck, champions are weak.

WBA is a total sideshow. Rankings are bull****. Consistency of policy is bull****.

 

Consider that in my scenario working to the World Champion position is much more difficult than it is now.

Hell, just getting into the top 10 would be a lot harder than now.

Also, once you are there, you would be fighting the best fighters several times a year. There will likely be better conditioned fighters but also more injuries.

Theoretically your idea makes sense, but in real life, the outcome of a fight can be total BS because of any number of factors.

To have someone work that hard to get to the top of a division lose controversially, or get completely robbed, then have to go all the way to the bottom of the roster where they may never get a shot at avenging a loss or reclaiming their title... just doesn't seem fair.

In my scenario even if the champ loses, he has to prove he's worthy by fighting the #1 challenger available before he gets a rematch for the World title.

That's a win-win-win-win for everyone.

The fans win by getting great fights.

The current champ wins by having extra time to train/recover from his last fight, do exhibitions, etc..

The previous champ gets a shot at redemption

The #1 challenger gets the experience/payday of fighting the former champion for the mandatory spot. Adding to his legacy and further proving his greatness.