This is a great rule which actually encourages unification. A WBA champ can unify the title and is then elevated to a higher status so that he doesn't get stripped of his WBA super title for not fighting his mandatories. The WBA can then still have the other fighters gunning for the WBA regular title. Until the ABCs merge, or one ABC clearly takes over the other ones, then the superchampion title is a good idea. thoughts?
I think it sounds stupid superchamp, what will they do when they want to make more money? Super duper champ:nut Calzaghe is listed as super champ at wbo? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_world_boxing_champions
I like the rule. People will say it's a ploy to get more sanctioning fees, but they need the sanctioning fees to exist. If their is no super champ, then a unified champ faces a much higher likelehood of being stripped of his title. Everyone complains about fighters not unifying, and unified champs getting stripped. Well, the WBA has found away to allow fighters to unify and not worry about getting stripped of their title.
Exactly!:good That is what people seem to overlook when they are complaining about the WBA super champion, the same people that ironically for the most part want unification of the titles.:roll: If it was up to organizations like IBF, who strip a fighter as soon as they can get away with it, we would never have any unification at all.
If the WBA have the true interests of boxing at heart then as soon as a 'SuperChamp' is crowned the 'standard' WBA world championship at that weight should become, and remain, vacant.
But then all the fighters who have worked so hard to move up in the WBA rankings would see all their efforts become worthless
Yes, but that would still leave us with two (or three if you take WBO seriously) big organizations to get rid of after WBA goes bankrupt. At least they (WBA) are doing the best effort out of the ABC's to make unification possible.
