Has the WBC cut title fights again, to ten rounds?

Only for interim I think , full world titles are still 12

 

Kabayel v Zhang is for the WBC interim belt and its listed as a 12 rounder.

 

There goes my theory then

 

International belts and the like can be 10 or 12 rds, its down to the promoters and A side which they want. Not sure about the interim tbh

 

I do think it has something to do with the WBC because it seems like its mainly their affiliates moving their title fights to 10 rounds. But it is not consistant. Like some organizations have it 10 for some weight classes and 12 for others. They've even had some 8 round title fights. Andy Ruiz v Ray Austin for the NABF being an example.

This seems like the first time they've done it for an interim world title fight. The WBC values the interim belts the least because they are trying to promote their WBC Silver. WBC Silver seems like its been 10 rounds on occasion but still mostly 12. So I guess thats what to expect here.

Back during WW2 the "duration" belts were the first interim titles and they were mostly set at 10 rounds. So your theory has happened before.

 

Its probably the silver I was thinking of, I'm sure I read an article or thread on here ages ago about it. There have been a few occasions where there's a fight that should be a 10 rounder is a 12 rounder, and something that should be a 12 rounder is only 10 rounds, no idea if there's any rhyme or reason to it.

WBC gonna WBC I guess!

 

Also hilarious looking at the WBC hierarchy with the champion , then the silver, then the interim, but if the champion vacates or is stripped presumably the interim would still be elevated to champ above the Silver, so is the Silver really above the interim? Makes my head spin trying to figure this stuff out

 

The best way to judge belts is by the matchup if the best fighter is a Silver champ thats what matters. But generally I find the idea the Silver belt or the regular belt is higher than the interim belt to be laughable because the interim is rarer. The IBF just made their first interim HW title fight and the WBC has had only a handful of interim title fights in most divisions. Interims are meant to be standins for the real title while Silver like regular is a junior title.


The WBA elevates regular above interim WBC uses interim I think they are just trying to phase it out. The WBA and WBC are trying to replace the interim with Regular or Silver because those are permanent 2nd titles while the interim is situational.

 

What a dog's dinner these organisations are! There should be a champion, and if they vacate or retire or whatever the 1 and 2 ranked fighters battle it out for a shot , with the 3rd rank being the first defence, thereby somewhat legitimising a previously vacated title. No interim, no silver... But then how would they take in all those sanctioning fees

EDIT
Battle it out for the title, not for a shot

 

To my understanding these lesser belts have been requested by the boxers and their promoters. Even the infamous Reg titles were created because Lennox wanted them.

I'm not trying to counter your point, I'm just curious why if it's a promoter/boxer requested thing then why is it the bodies are the only thing I ever seen criticized?

I am not saying the bodies don't create belt for fees, but I am saying they make those belts and collect extra fees because Bob Arum and Eddie Hearn asks them to and then have those fights because guys like Pulev and Charr want those belts.


When the Silver came out no one liked it but also absolutely no one gave Povetkin any criticism for asking for that belt. No one gave him any criticism for asking to be given a chance to defend that belt before he takes the mandatory challenger position to the main belt.


I don't mean to criticize you or tell you you're wrong about anything just asking why this criticism is never pointed at the boxers and their handlers.

 

Thats fair to point out, I was completely unaware of that! Although a quick Google search (not perfect, I know) shows the first wbc silver belt being created in 2010 which i think was at JMW, povetkin didn't fight for the heavyweight version until 2014, I'm not sure if there was a WBC silver title at heavyweight before that or not

Either way, if promoters and fighters are asking for the creation of more belts as a marketing strategy for their fighters, that's also frustrating behaviour as it enables the sanctioning bodies to keep rolling out more and more titles

The biggest reason I want it all to stop is simplicity and lineage, damn all bodies, promoters and fighters trying to create more belts !

 

Yeah bud, it's crazy. I been down the rabbit hole a while. Started questioning myself and others.

Like the single belt desire. There's no way we're wrong about that is there? I don't know, maybe we are. Because the truth is these things like the multi body system and the multiple belts from each and every one of them is very much tied into keeping boxing alive.

I'm not saying I know this is true or not. It's just an argument that can be made. A perspective. The reason the belts started to roll out hard just as Floyd was winding down and Wlad was aging out is because boxing was dying and the bodies/promoters/fighters hatched a plan to save it. Or to say that differently, the prospectors did not like boxing's prospects and so changed them.


Many smaller, lesser, fights to pay for what the big fights used to. The growth of boxing. Taking in new markets and finding new fans.


so I guess what I'm saying is be careful when you start questioning about the belts. You might find yourself unsure of how right a one belt solution is. Crazy as that is to say.

 

join the club