How the WBA could have increased their credibility..............

.......................when Muhammad Ali announced,what we all hoped would be,his final retirement on 27/6/79. Just picture this announcement from the WBA -

"Now that Muhammad Ali has announced his retirement,thus vacating our title,John Tate and Gerrie Coetzee will fight an eliminator in October to decide which of them will be our number one contender. The WBC holder,Larry Holmes,has already proved himself to be a worthy successor to Muhammad Ali. He is defending his belt against Earnie Shavers in September. We will recognise the winner of that bout as our own champion"

Would n't that have been good if the WBA had gone ahead with that ?

 

Really they should have followed suit with the wbc and stripped Ali in the first place after his succession of gifts.

 

Stevie G,

That means, the WBA would have had to show 'integrity'.

Dr. Elias Cordova and Rodrigo Sanchez (WBA Officials in 1979)

There wasn't enough room in their pockets for 'integrity'.

 

Increased credibility? It is impossible to times anything by zero and get any answer other than zero...

Everything worked out fine. Tate, Weaver et al made better money claiming a 'world title'. Whilst anyone with half a brain for the sport knew who the 'real' champ was, at the latest after Holmes beat Ali.

The problem is today's environment, where there is a vacant title, and the two stand out contenders (understandable) will not fight each other.

 

Bloody true,Pepe :good

Stlll,we can but dream.

 

Stevie G,

Lets back up 1-year.

How about if the WBA makes Leon Spinks defend his title versus Ken Norton
like he was supposed to, instead of giving Muhammad Ali a rematch in September 1978.

Muhammad Ali was the ruination of many rules, regulations and obligations - that
affected many aspects of the sport of boxing.

 

As big a fan as I always was/am of Ali,I admit that Spinks defending against Norton would have been the right thing to do. However,the Ali rematch was decided by the almighty buck.

 

In todays environment very few would class wlad as a standout contender.

Holmes never fought his number 1 contender neither but at the point wlad beat iggy he'd beaten both the number 2 and 3 heavyweights. Then vitali came back and made it clear he didn't contend wlads championship status.

 

So are you saying Norton/Holmes were not the two best of the time? Add that to the Ali victory, and Holmes was credible IMO. The brothers Klitschko beat everyone but their main rival (the other brother, for those being dim).

 

I think Don King suggested something like that.
Tried to get Tate and Holmes to fight for the vacant WBA title.

Of course, the WBA were in Bob Arum's pocket at the time on these matters. And King had the WBC.

 

The WBA should have pulled the 'plug' on Muhammad Ali, the night
he walked into the ring with Alfredo Evangelista.

But, no - the sanctioning fee's went for lavish vacations on the French
Riviera for the top WBA Officials.

True Story,,,,,

 

...by not charging 10,000 of a $12,000 purse to sanction a non-title fight

 

Terrible, terrible challenger. No other heavyweight champ would ever give Evangelista a shot at the WBC belt...

 

I'm sure 33 years latter the WBA would have done something or should I say things to ruin whatever credibility they might have gotten.

 

Or Scott Frank for that matter !!