WBA rulez - how many superchampions at the same time?

Thats a good question. while we;re on the topic can someone plz explain how the WBA can have more than one champ; for example both Kessler and Mundine are WBA super middleweight champions. How can this be??

 

Just another scheme to suck in more title fees from the fighters with their WBA belts.

Jermain Taylor was turned into the WBA superchampion for being the unified belt holder and Felix Sturm was later awarded the regular WBA Championship.

How about this one, Juan Manuel Marquez became the WBA Super Champion when he unified with the IBF. Because of this Chris John from Indonesia was awarded the WBA Regular belt. When Marquez refused to take a bull**** defence he was stripped of his super champ belt and did not receive the regular belt back and became beltless. Gotta love that WBA eh.

I think the WBA is the worst of the sanctioning bodies at this point. If what you said happened they would probably call the new unified belt holders something like Interim or call the first who unified the Ultra champ or some crap like that to get as much money as they can.

 

i ****ing hate that whole super champ bull****. like the title belts arent already diluted enough when we get a unified champ who actually can legitimately call himself the champion of the world they go and pull that bull****. its all so they can sell more tickets and get more ratings for more "title fights" its ****ing rediculous

 

Thats ******ed. I've never really liked having more than 3 belts but the more I watch boxing it seems as though another abc title belt has been created. The funniest one I've seen was the WBC 'Youth' belt, what does that mean anyway; you turned pro but your still not a real pro?? (what about tyson 20, ali 22, vargas 21) imagine being the North American Boxing Council Federation middleweight Interim Youth Champion or NABCF:nut ; I one don't think they have this yet but we're probably not too faratsch

 

Boxing orgs make me puke!

 

No, the fight wouldn't be sanctioned. The "regular beltholder" isn't allowed to unify, if he fights for another belt he will be stripped of the WBA paper title.

 

You know, despite what some writers would have you believe, there IS actually a legitimate reason for having superchampions. Basically, without superchampions, there would never be a way to unify the belts, because mandatories would come up too quickly to take down any of the other champions. Superchampions get twice as long to face their mandatories (the regular champs), so they can go after other beltholders instead. Whether you think unification of the belts is a valid exercise is another story, but I can see why they do it, other than collection of additional sanctioning fees.

 

That's just an excuse, if the sanctioning bodies actually cared about that they would simply extend the mandatory period for their champion in case he unified belts and that's it. There is absolutly no reason for another "champ" other than sanctioning fees.

 

What if a superchampion fought a regular champion?

 

Super dooper champ duhatsch

 

If The Ring want to be helpful and the people want to use their power this is the sort of **** that needs to be exposed and petitioned. An interim champ is ok, circumstances often calls for it but a super champ. That's just for extra sanctioning fees.

 

The regular champion that becomes available once the original title holder becomes super champion is pretty much just a glorified mandatory to the super champion.
Another good thing about it is that it forces the regular champion to fight guys ranked in the top 15 of their org.

It's still a load of balls though.

 

WBA in Cruiserweight is the best: Mormeck-WBA, Hill-WBA, Arslan-interim WBA :nut