A Real Legitimate World Title??

Why is it not legitimate? As surely the WBA in their organization have the 'right' to place who ever they want as champ?

The WBA have a long history in the sport, especially if you include the NBA. And although they have caused many problems in the sport, they have also have given belts to 'the who's who' of the sport. Also due to their politics, they opened the sport up with the 'Latin coup' in the 1970s, to more Countries, is that a stain?

 

No its not, as i would rate Quigg if he wins is that he would be the number 1 challanger for Rigondeaux title Regular title is a bunch of crap Rigo is the WBA champion, i only count 4 world titles i dont count intirem or regular belts.

 

i like Scott Quigg a lot but really its not a world title its almost a world title. it certainly isn't meaningless but its not a full world title. its just a belt the WBA made to make money but it would Mark Quigg as the clear number 2.

 

Rigondeaux is the champion of the division, thus Quigg is just as legitimate as Martinez and Santa Cruz, ie belt holders but not the proper champion

 

The modern day WBA are a stain, multiple champions at one weight completely devalues what a champion is. Quigg will not be a real world champion if he wins this fight. It's bad enough with the alphabet soup titles and getting worse with nonsense like super champion, regular champion, interim champion.
They may have done some good in the past but now they're just a mess.

 

So anyone who counts this as a world title could recognise about 7 world champions at one weight?!?

 

He's yet to do anything to be worthy of it, so no

 

Surely they (the WBA) are just after money? Isn't that what the sport ultimately about, no matter who you are in it? So the realization that more titles means more money, is just 'good boxing'. If Quigg gets a few thousand pounds more than he would of in his next fight because of the belt he has around his waist, that is good thing surely?

 

It will be good for Quigg and I wouldn't begrudge him that, but I'm a fan, I don't care about the money- I just love the sport. Multiple paper champions are clearly a bad thing for boxing.

 

But why? Boxing has always had multiple champions. It is arguably the most ruthless Capitalistic sport on the Planet, which in a Capitalistic society surely is a good thing? And although it has peaked in popularity in former strong holds like the USA and the UK, it has found new avenues of revenue, particularly amongst the Latino and South East Asian markets. I do not see the 'multiple champion' issue being an issue. Indeed it is a benefit in that every market can see a title fight, and that does seem a formula for success.

 

I was going to mention this.

Quigg is as much of a 'champion' as Povetkin is. i.e. Not one.

 

i haven't herd one person claim it was A Real Legitimate World Title