So I guess before hurtling into an uncontrollable tirade about the unnecessary titles that have seemingly multiplied within the sport, I should take a moment (or an hour) trying to understand whether there are complexities that I hadn’t fully considered, or if there are some genuinely advantageous reasons behind the decision to legitimise titles such as ‘Franchise’ and ‘Interim’ or even (puts on tin hat) ‘Pearl’ Champion.
Firstly, the sport is difficult enough to understand for those who do not follow boxing with the same fervent passion as many of us, what with baffling terminology like lineal, unified, and undisputed champion bandied around. Those are generally terms that most boxing fans have now familiarised themselves with. If not, then they are recognised as the following.
Lineal:
Known in simple terms as ‘The man who beat the man’ (or woman of course). A phrase coined most recently by Tyson Fury who beat lineal champion Wladimir Klitschko for the WBA (super), WBO and IBF titles. Fury still refers to himself as such today despite having to relinquish them. The reason he still considers himself as such is because he did not lose the titles in the ring.
Unified:
A fighter who holds two or more of the major sanctioning titles (WBA, WBC, WBO, IBF). Hence why a fight between two competitors who each hold a major belt is referred to as a unification bout.
Undisputed:
An undisputed champion is a fighter who holds all the four major belts. Holding all the belts in the division means they can not be disputed as The Champion of their weight class.
That seems fairly straight forward on the surface, but to scrutinise the idea that a number of belts are added to main titles that are already recognised, unearths some strong reasoning as to why people are against the existence of more. For example, having four major governing organisations with one champion and one belt seems enough. The argument that would support that is that since the existence of the four-belt era in 2004, there has not been an undisputed heavyweight champion. So surely before we start to add more belts into the mix, we should try to figure out why we haven’t had a definitive champion of what many consider to be the blue-ribbon weight class, the iconic division within the sport of boxing. The last boxer to carry the undisputed title was Lennox Lewis in 1999. That is more than twenty years without a definitive answer as to who is unquestionably the best in the division. I am not normally one to use comparisons or analogies from other sports, but in football, motor racing, cricket, golf and many other sports, the best are forced to face the best. In boxing that is not necessarily the case. Maybe the political ramifications of such a discussion means that a debate about that is best left for another day.
If we leave aside the amount of belts that are available to win, you could ask, is there any credibility attached to the insertion of some of these ‘extra’ belts? In fairness I’m sure the prestige of being called a ‘super champion’ or earning a ‘diamond’ belt is hugely appealing to a fighter but it does not alter the legitimacy of it. You only have to browse Twitter to see a litany of complaints or rants regarding the apparent lack of support for ‘made up’ titles, conjured from the president or board members of the sanctioning bodies. We are not just talking the ‘boxing casuals’ that are angered either, it is not as if there is a myriad of professional boxers and trainers supporting the movement.
The question of legitimacy is an important one to explore in a little more detail. Take the fight between Amir Khan and Neeraj Goyat, (cue a frantic trip to Boxrec to research). The fight did not happen, because Goyat was involved in a car crash. But the winner of the fight was initially due to be rewarded with a uniquely sanctioned ‘Pearl’ belt. A one-off belt that was ratified by the WBC (World Boxing Council), billed as a historic fight between Pakistan and India. Call me cynical, but the belt felt little more than a political vehicle or stunt to elevate the status of a fight that had very little significance. Goyat, whilst being a competent operator, at the time held a record of facing fighters who had cumulative records of having exactly the same amount of defeats as wins. Hardly a ringing endorsement of a fight worthy of a belt with such a wondrous title. The diamond belt was similarly ‘created’ as it was deemed appropriate to be given as a trinket that signalled the size or magnitude of the fight between Pacquiao and Mayweather in 2009 and then again for Fury Wilder. No real arguments behind the sentiment of allocating those fights as historic, high profile fights but the culmination of that initial acceptance saw the Dillian Whyte Alexander Povetkin bout get the same treatment. How can we really begin to understand the decision behind making available such a title when neither of them held a major sanctioned belt from any of the organisations? Do they become merely a marketing tool? It is the suggestion that these belts or titles are given or bestowed rather than earned or fought for and even more confusing cannot be won against an opponent that already holds one!
The process that precedes the quest for major belts seems to be more uncomplicated with a tried and tested format. In this country the route tends to be Area, English, British, Commonwealth and then European. It is at that point that the route tends to split into different paths with many professional boxers choosing the most accessible avenue in terms of securing big purses, big fights, and reputable titles. If they are successful in their quest for world honours, they will no doubt pick up along the way various Interim, silver, and regular belts.
Here are some of the belts that exist within the major organisations.
IBF:
Recognised as a major sanctioning body in 1983. One belt, with fighters ranked number one or two made the mandatory challenger.
WBA:
Two belts on the line within this organisation, ‘Regular’ and ‘Super’. How do you become super as opposed to regular? By winning another recognised sanctioning title (WBC, IBF, WBO) the then regular is elevated to super and the regular is contested by two other fighters, determined by being either number one or two in the rankings, (mandatory challenger).
WBC:
It is the belt that many will be able to recognise, with its unmistakeable green colour and a stream of world flags decorating its strap.
Now that the high profile is out of the way, lets attempt to explain the terms of their belts. So, the Diamond belt, as explained earlier is an honorary belt for a historic fight. The Silver belt is classed as a secondary belt. The Eternal Championship is reserved for fighters who have never lost the belt or retire undefeated following a succession of title defences. Defences have to occur once a year, but mandatory defences can be avoided if a step aside fee is negotiated, thus becoming a voluntary as opposed to a mandatory.
WBO:
Formed later than its three predecessors in 1988 and only became one of the major sanctioning bodies in 2004, the WBO also have to have a defence once a year, (well, to be pedantic, no greater than 9 months in accordance with section 5a). If the mandatory defence is unfulfilled and the belt is vacated, the belt is then contested by the top two available contenders. But only if they comply with a list of necessities that include being signed to a major television network, i.e. HBO, Showtime, ZDF, Sky or similar.
There is plenty to digest with all of those organisational rules and regulations and I can certainly see that tangible rewards and motivational benefits for boxers might mean that the industry is okay with these titles existing. Maybe titles provide more competitive fights and bigger audiences. We all want to encourage the sport to appeal to a bigger market. For me though, the irony of more glistening, sparkly belts being made available for the wrong reasons just takes the shine off the sport a little.
Comments