View Full Version : If a Champ has two belts, say...WBC and WBO...can he stake only one of them?
Decebal
09-25-2007, 11:52 AM
Taylor is WBC and WBO Champ...could he have said to Pavlik..."we only fight for my WBC belt, but not my WBO belt"?
How does this thing work?
pipe wrenched
09-25-2007, 11:55 AM
I don't remember who, but I remember a reporter asking Mayweather if the fight would be for all the belts, and PBF said no only the WBC because I'm not paying sanctioning fees for the others. Maybe against Baldomir??
istmeno
09-25-2007, 12:27 PM
but in most cases, except for the bullshit pulled recently by the ibf, with zab. the title is vacated if the champion loses.
Decebal
09-25-2007, 12:29 PM
I still don't have an answer....is it YES?
Asterion
09-25-2007, 12:32 PM
Yup, I think so.
samita
09-25-2007, 12:33 PM
didn't zab do that against baldomir?
pipe wrenched
09-25-2007, 12:41 PM
I thought Baldomir was the one who only paid for the WBC.
^
That's what I thought floyd did against Baldomir. He said he was only fighting him for his WBC belt.
Fab2333
09-25-2007, 12:43 PM
I think you can do that, but you have to pay sanctioning fees for the other belt. As some1 posted be4.
I think you have to pay sanctioning fees for each belt evrytime you defend it, so its upto the fighter if he wants to put one or two belts on the line
Decebal
09-25-2007, 12:44 PM
Yeah, they could but in case of a loss it was always so that the other organisation stripped him fro the title and vacated it.
...so, the other body would have stripped him anyway if he lost?
jopez707
09-25-2007, 12:58 PM
I think the other organizations would find some obscure rule to strip him if he lost.
istmeno
09-25-2007, 01:06 PM
I think the other organizations would find some obscure rule to strip him if he lost.
it is not an obscure rule. it has been common practice as long as i can remember. or do you believe that if a fighter loses a fight, he should be entitled to hold on to a belt that he is not worthy of.
Decebal
09-25-2007, 01:08 PM
it is not an obscure rule. it has been common practice as long as i can remember. or do you believe that if a fighter loses a fight, he should be entitled to hold on to a belt that he is not worthy of.
So...then, how come some Champs only put up one of their titles up for grabs? What is the point, if they would lose both anyway?
Decebal
09-25-2007, 01:11 PM
They donīt have to pay sanctioning fees for the other organisation.
:good
istmeno
09-25-2007, 01:16 PM
So...then, how come some Champs only put up one of their titles up for grabs? What is the point, if they would lose both anyway?
that is when a fighter is facing the snactioning bodies mandatory challenger which is a reason many times this garbage of stripping champions happens. the wbc #1 is not necessarily the wba #1. therefore, in a mandatory defense, only one is on the line unless the other sanctionong body agrees. . should said champ win, he is still looking at a mandatory defense against the other bodies #1. it is not the champions choice per se. because he technically does put all of his belts at risk when he enters the ring.
in all of my years of being a fight fan, the zab fiasco is the only time i can remember a unified champion retaining a belt after a loss. and that happened because those corrupt bastards wanted the fight with pbf to still come off.
Decebal
09-25-2007, 01:19 PM
that is when a fighter is facing the snactioning bodies mandatory challenger which is a reason many times this garbage of stripping champions happens. the wbc #1 is not necessarily the wba #1. therefore, in a mandatory defense, only one is on the line unless the other sanctionong body agrees. . should said champ win, he is still looking at a mandatory defense against the other bodies #1. it is not the champions choice per se. because he technically does put all of his belts at risk when he enters the ring.
in all of my years of being a fight fan, the zab fiasco is the only time i can remember a unified champion retaining a belt after a loss. and that happened because those corrupt bastards wanted the fight with pbf to still come off.
:good
UndisputedUK
09-25-2007, 02:54 PM
Taylor is WBC and WBO Champ...could he have said to Pavlik..."we only fight for my WBC belt, but not my WBO belt"?
How does this thing work?
Yes. Baldomir won a fight, and the IBF gave the belt back to Judah.
Pavlik should hold aloft the WBO belt and discard the WBC one when he beats Taylor, so should Calzaghe when he beats Kessler.
People should then realise who the champ is. The IBF lost all credit when it started stripping fighters and when it gave Judah the title back. WBA went with the superchamp crap. WBO superchamp must win 10 WBO title fights at the weight in a row. that means something.
kg0208
09-25-2007, 03:02 PM
Yes. Baldomir won a fight, and the IBF gave the belt back to Judah.
Pavlik should hold aloft the WBO belt and discard the WBC one when he beats Taylor, so should Calzaghe when he beats Kessler.
People should then realise who the champ is. The IBF lost all credit when it started stripping fighters and when it gave Judah the title back. WBA went with the superchamp crap. WBO superchamp must win 10 WBO title fights at the weight in a row. that means something.
The WBO also has had some of the worst rankings for fighters in recent years, though they have somewhat improved. None of those belts are better than the other.
^
That's what I thought floyd did against Baldomir. He said he was only fighting him for his WBC belt.
Baldomir only had the WBC belt when fought Mayweather, so Floyd didn't have any choice in the matter. The reason Baldo only won the WBC belt from Judah was because he couldn't afford to pay the sanctioning fees for all three titles.
And for the record, it was Judah who only wanted to put the WBC belt up against Mayweather when their fight was originally scheduled before the Baldomir loss.
Yes. Baldomir won a fight, and the IBF gave the belt back to Judah.
Pavlik should hold aloft the WBO belt and discard the WBC one when he beats Taylor, so should Calzaghe when he beats Kessler.
People should then realise who the champ is. The IBF lost all credit when it started stripping fighters and when it gave Judah the title back. WBA went with the superchamp crap. WBO superchamp must win 10 WBO title fights at the weight in a row. that means something.
Gimme a fucking break. The WBO kept a advancing a dead fighter (who had fought only once in the last three years of his life) into the top ten of their World Championship rankings a few years back. They had notoriously bad rankings for years.
All the belts are shit these days, don't pretend otherwise.
So...then, how come some Champs only put up one of their titles up for grabs? What is the point, if they would lose both anyway?
It's usually the challenger who chooses whether or not to pay the sanctioning fee in order to challenge for the titles; however, there have been some cases where the sanctioning bodies refused to sanction a fight with a poorly ranked challenger. I believe that the WBC (when it was a credible organization) refused to let Holyfield put their HW belt on the line against Bert Cooper because he wasn't ranked in the top ten at the time of the fight.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.