Does winning the WBA regular title make you a world champion?

i would like to say yes but in this day and age it means **** especially the wba

 

Not if there is a super champion. David Haye was a real WBA champ but he lost it to Wladdy. Now that Wlad is the super WBA champ,Povetkin ain't ****. The WBA regular champ can't keep his "regular" title if he fights for a different world title. Povetkin would have to vacate if he fought Wlad or Vital. The regular title is just a glorified ranking rally. It mean that Povetkin is the top fighter after Wlad.

 

It depends

If there is a Super WBA World belt in the division then no, if there isnt yes

E.g.

Andre Ward is the Super world champion, Karoly Balszay is the regular at 168

Vyacheslav Senchenko is the WBA regular champ at 147 but there isnt a Super belt yet so he is recognised as the WBA champ

 

If the super champion is legit then it doesn't mean much, but if the super champion isn't legit or non existent then they are a real world champion.

 

No alphabet title on its own carries the prestige of "world champion".

 

It is the same as a interim belt.

 

it means nothing, or at least it should. It's so frickin' weird seeing Povetkin putting that belt on the line and claiming to be a world champion. Much better to be a European, Olympic or American champion - those are the titles that should rank right below world level.

 

No.

 

/thread.

 

I'd take it.

 

Should go like this: ONE world title (We only got one world, right?) - Intercontinetal title (First challenger to the World Champion) - Continental titles like European and American - Regional titles - National titles.

 

u could buy one at a local pawn shop

 

I say no but some analysts are inconsistent

Dan Rafael gives not credit to Povetkin and calls him a fraud

but When Rios and Gamboa held regular versions they were champs in his eyes

Any way a fighter makes the belt

 

you mean zab judah..