Dave Allen retires

As for Povetkin, that was the biggest Russian Attack on the central nervous system since Salisbury, Price was iced. Sure he had a go but that's the MINIMUM you'd expect from any fighter, have a go, we complain when fighters don't, Price did and I should praise him?

That's to me is like my Spurs losing 8-0 and praising them for running around a bit.

Probably closer to England getting a good run in the world cup or euros than what you have explained but I appreciate what you are saying.

Yeah cool, we can agree to disagree, it's nothing personal, just opinions.

That's true, thanks for explaining your perspective and honestly it's just opinions.

 

David Haye held the WBA Heavyweight Title, which today is now the WBA (Super). That was before the WBA elevated its only title into the WBA (Super) and established the WBA (regular) which is in line with WBC Silver, WBO Intercontinental and so on.

It is in no way a world title, for anyone to argue as much is to admit that they have been duped by "clever" marketing. These are the same boxing fans who moan that there are too many belts, yet they fall for this kind of nonsense and actively encourage the recognised legitimacy of yet another (bogus) belt! To claim that the WBA (regular) is a world title, is to also claim that Dillian Whyte was a world champion when he held the WBC Silver. If the WBA (regular) was a world title, then why was no one interested in boxing Manuel Charr? Why's nobody interested in calling out Trevor Bryan, at the top level?

If we go even further, we should recognise a "world champion" as the best in the world. Unfortunately, in boxing, we have 4 recognised world title belts. WBA (super), WBC, IBF and WBO. Why should the WBA (regular) be thrown into the mix? Why should the WBA have two world title belts floating around?

Like the WBC Silver, the belt may have its purpose, but only as a stepping stone to the WBA (Super).

There is a reason the belt was/is held by Povetkin, Chagaev, Browne, Charr and Bryan. Furthermore, Klitschko, the WBA (Super) champion "beat" Povetkin, the WBA (regular) champion and he didn't even take on the belt. Why do you think that is? It's because it's the second string belt. Nobody holds the WBC Silver and WBC title simultaneously.

 

If I remember right I believe Klitschko was granted the Super Title after beating David Haye? If I'm right there was a Super title in other divisions before this fight also.

I agree that it's confusing with how the WBA have arranged the belts but I would still consider it a World Title, that doesn't mean that since Browne the belt hasn't lost a lot of prestige and in many ways the WBA's plan to elevate the WBA super to be the #1 world title has failed.

 

The WBA belt held by Haye, which was on the line vs Klitschko, was already to be renamed the WBA (Super) because of the addition of WBA (regular) into the division.

I couldn't disagree with you more. You've not offered a single explanation as to why you consider it a world title and you have not responded to my question asking why the WBA's second string belt can be classified, somehow, as a world title, when the WBC Silver etc can't. I'm also bemused as to why you are endorsing yet another, fifth, world championship belt, to an already enormously fragmented sport! Also, why would it not be required to be undisputed? Undisputed means that there is no doubt who the champion is, so how can there be another champion on the go, while another guy is undisputed?

The WBA's plan has worked to perfection. The WBA (Super) is their world title. It is sought after by the best and it has only been held by the best. There is a reason why Fury, Klitschko and Joshua could not care less about the WBA (regular). There is a reason why they are in line to compete for the undisputed championship.... without the WBA (regular). Then they are able to dupe some, as a marketing exercise, into believing their second string belt is actually a world title - more publicity, more money. You couldn't make it up!

Of course networks like Sky and certain boxers (like Whyte) will endorse the legitimacy of the WBA (regular) because it gives them something to sell. It's absolutely nonsensical and as you can tell, I can't stand snake oil sales.

 

Allen is such a great character, he's a complete chancer but deeply flawed. He changes his mind regularly because that's the type of guy he is, I don't think he does it for attention. He's comfortable living in the moment, as soon as he has to plan for the future or take responsibility he loses the plot. To be fair to him he's a tough bloke as well and I'd genuinely love to go for a pint with the crazy *******.

 

I just think it's how his brain is wired, he seems to have an addictive personality, mixed with having highs and lows and results him struggling to have stability so it must be really hard for him to constantly be regular at training for example, as in being professional.

 

I appreciate what you are saying and if that was the case across all divisions I would completely agree with you but I believe in other Divisions where a fighter has not qualified for the super title the regular title is considered the world title. I think this really blurs the lines when people will look at the history books as you have identified it wills how David Haye as fighting as a WBA regular champion but in my eyes that was and is a legitimate WBA reign. As recently as a year or two ago it was the belt Bivol won at Light Heavyweight and I would 100% consider it a world title.

If I'm right I believe the Super title is restricted to a couple of requirements such as multiple recognised titles while WBA champion, x number of defences and the title is promoted or defeating the current "Super Champion"(although I can't think of an example where someone has won the belt without winning multiple titles from memory) which makes sense for it's existence in that case?

If the point you are making is that it shouldn't be counted as a world title IF there is a reigning super champion then maybe you could have a point with that but given how it's presented and the calibre of boxer who has held the belt I think it would be a disservice to dismiss it as a WBC Silver type belt.

You aren't wrong about the more publicity/money thing though.

 

He's also an obvious egoist. He probably loves a pound note more than most. He's been public about his gambling struggles, and the Minto bout inadvertently showcased another dimension to that, alleged by some viewers, and even more by many gamblers.

If you do end up in a pub with him, make sure your wallet is wedged between your arse cheeks.

 

David Haye won the WBA Heavyweight Championship from Nikolai Valuev. That was the only WBA Heavyweight Championship. Therefore, it was the full fat belt. The WBA then introduced the Super/Regular concept and the winner out of Haye and Klitschko rightly fought for Haye's full fat belt, and thus it carried the lineage that went before it, all the way from Jack Dempsey, and Anthony Joshua is the current belt holder. On the other hand, Trevor Bryan holds the other belt, which was first won by Alexander Povetkin WHILE Wladimir Klitschko was the OTHER WBA belt holder, who won the belt off David Haye, who won the belt off Nikolai Valuev etc. How the fk can anyone consider Povetkin the WBA champ, when Klitschko is holding the actual belt? This is the same lineage that goes back to Lewis, Holyfield, Tyson, Bowe, Ali, Liston, Patterson, Marciano and so on. It is an insult to history to succumb to a simple, sleazy marketing technique all for the sake of money, to accept the WBA (regular) belt as a world title. As I said, you are creating an even bigger problem by doing this, and encouraging a 5th belt, which you seemingly do not think is required to be undisputed. Your logic is all over the place.

The WBA, like all other bodies, make the rules as they go along. Of course someone who is interim (WBA Regular) can be elevated to the real champion (WBA Super), as it can and has happened across all bodies.

I couldn't care less what the calibre of boxer is who owns the belt. That is an arbritrary criterion for judging legitimacy.

If Man Utd win the League Cup, that doesn't make it as prestigious as the FA Cup or League. Everyone knows it's the third string domestic competition. If Roger Federer wins Halle but loses Wimbledon, Halle does not assume grand slam status. If Lin Dan wins the All England but doesn't win the World Championships, the All England does not become more prestigious than the World's. If van Gerwen wins the Matchplay and loses the World's, the Matchplay does not become more prestigious. Saul Alvarez won the WBA (regular) super middleweight title over Rocky Fielding. Everywhere reported that he won the world title, while it was actually Callum Smith who was the legitimate champion. Everyone knew Rocky Fielding was a relative diddy and the belt was second string, but because Alvarez won it, it becomes legitimate.

Boxing fans contradict themselves all the time. No wonder they are so easily played by promoters and networks.

The funniest thing to me is that it is ALL in the name. If they named it the WBA Silver, nobody would consider it a word title. That's how dumb it is.

 

Dave has announced he is meeting with a promoter that isn’t Eddie Hearn today, and considering coming back and having a few 6 or 8 rounders before challenging for the British

 

I wish Dave would stay away.

 

Tell me this is a joke..

 

What a coup for Channel 5 and Big Mick.

 

What's happening with your boy, Price?

Been what?, 18 months since he last fought I'm guessing.

Has he retired?

 

He was around mine fixing the sink yesterday so he definitely hasn't retired.