WBA Regular or WBC Silver?

Now thinking? It's always been "the title". Look at how it works, a guy wins a The WBA title. He then eventually gets elevated to Super Champ for a variety of reasons and then they create a regular champ.

Anyway, yeah, the regular champs is on the same level as the WBC Silver champ. Neither are legitimate champions or even legit title holders.

 

For some reason the WBA regular title gets more respect. Maybe because sometimes there isn't a WBA super champion.

 

I don't hold either belt in any esteem. There will soon be wbc bronze, and wba irregular, for those pesky scenarios when someone with a bag of cash needs a belt.

 

There is only a WBA regular title when a Super Champ is in existence. You can't have a regular champ without a Super Champ.

 

Golovkin was the regular until he signed this fight with Geale.:rofl

 

If Super Champ is vacated regular champ does not become a Super Champ in WBA until is formally elevated which becomes eligible after 10 title defenses. Unified WBA titlists I believe are also technically Super Champs if they unify with WBO or IBF. WBC I am unclear of, IBO doesnt count.

In any case, in my view any belt is only as good as the fighter who holds it.

 

Technically he was elevated to Super so he could fight Geale, and Fletcher could then fight for the WBA regular which the WBA had mandated. WBA had previously declined to make GGG Super Champ, but word is HBO got involved and really read the WBA the riot act about trying to force a Fletcher-GGG fight.

Elevating GGG to Super Champ was really the only face saving move available to them, faced with either publicly reversing the Fletcher mandatory Regular position or getting on HBO's **** list.

 

I find the WBC silver and international titles useful as it allows boxers to get a ranking in the organisation and work their way up but the WBA regular title is a bit of a farce because people claim it to be a world title. The WBA never claim the silver title to be a world title.