Talk:List of current world boxing champions/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Lineal champions

Why is garcia been put in as lineal champion at light welter? this is incorrect and should be amended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.232.53 (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

We can't have a lineal champions column. The Lineal championship article says it better than I could: "there is no single canonical list of lineal champions ..."--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

But this list is for current champions, of which the lineals are most prominently handled by TBRB and CBZ. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd say the most prominent lineal championships are The Ring's--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Do we have agreement to remove it?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Not from me, for the reason above. To expand on that, an example: The Ring considers their light heavyweight title to be vacant, yet Adonis Stevenson holds the true and legitimate lineal title. The Ring merely stripped him of their title for whatever reasons, but Stevenson has never lost the lineal title in the ring; nor has he had a two-year period of inactivity/semi-retirement like Tyson Fury. I can't agree to it being removed, at least until other users weigh in. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I didn't understand your earlier comments. You seem to be arguing against keeping The Ring champions rather than for the lineal champions column. What makes a champion true and legitimate?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not in favour of removing either of them at this point, since the Ring and lineal titles have not been intertwined for a while. Another example: according to the TBRB, Fury abdicated the lineal title (along with the rest of his ABCs), yet The Ring bizarrely still considers him their champion. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I think we should at least consider renaming the "lineal" column to "TBRB". CBZ still lists Pacquiao as the welterweight champion. This is a huge pet peeve of mine, a lot of profiles cite fights being for the lineal title, which is fairly ahistorical. The lineal champion according to whom? It's usually the Cyber Boxing Zone lineage, which was constructed retroactively and has a lot of problems, or The Ring lineage, which should just be referred to as the The Ring title.Fpwlada (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Renaming the column is a good idea. I like it. We constantly see discrepancies between the publications that decide on lineal champions—be it The Ring, TBRB, Cyber Boxing Zone (CBZ), or miscellaneous media. Even now there are several that still list Fury as lineal heavyweight champion (including himself), even though he clearly abdicated by announcing that he was not fit to compete. Also, CBZ continued to list Pacquiao as lineal welterweight champion after the third Bradley fight, whereas TBRB and most other outlets considered him temporarily retired until the Vargas fight; I doubt anyone would consider Horn the lineal champion after his Pacquiao win.

MOS:BOXING/WEIGHT also uses a TBRB column. I would not be against one on this list, but it should have a {{refn}} note (see Terence Crawford's infobox for an example) to clarify that it is specifically the TBRB's own definition of current lineal champions. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with all of that. Perhaps a refn note would be superflous since the Championships#Lineal section (which should be accordingly renamed Championships#Transnational Boxing Rankings Board) explains what the TBRB is, but I'd be OK with making the change either way. Fpwlada (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

We could have a TBRB column, but we should consider whether or not it enhances the list. I have two concerns:

1. Do the TBRB titles have wide enough recognition to be included?
2. Is it an improvement to include a second column of lineal championships when they are so similar? More than 2/3 of them are vacant. Today the champions of the two are entirely different, but usually there isn't much difference between them.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 09:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I think what User:Fpwlada meant was to replace the current lineal column entirely with a TBRB one, with the notion being that they are the most well-publicised authority (probably in their view, not mine) on current lineal champions. The current lineal column appears to be based more on CBZ's list, an idea which I've never truly agreed with—they're not a proper organisation like TBRB. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Now is probably a good time to change the name of the column, seeing how people keep listing Fury as the lineal champion and that will probably increase if he gets closer to a comeback. Fpwlada (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I think we have consensus that we don't want a lineal column, but we haven't made much progress on deciding if it's better with or without a TBRB column.

Mac Dreamstate thinks someone (it's not clear to me if it's Fpwlada or the TBRB) has a notion that the TBRB titles are the most well-publicized, although he disagrees. I don't see any other reasons given in this discussion for including it.

The two concerns I raised in my previous comment deserve to be addressed before we proceed. I'm not 100% decided on the issue, but I think it's clear which way I'm leaning.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 08:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the second point you raised is a valid concern, but the reality is that as currently constructed, the article already lists the TBRB champions and explains their methodology in the Champions#Lineal section. We would just need to change the name of that column. Maybe we need an RfC or something of the sort? Fpwlada (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm torn on this. On one hand, I wouldn't mind the column being renamed to "TBRB", as it would at least be a clear statement as to which "version" of lineal title is being displayed on the list—and I believe them to be more credible than CBZ. However, they are not a sanctioning body like the WBA/WBC/IBF/WBO.. Then again, neither is the The Ring, and I've seen a few good arguments in the past for removing that from the list as well. It could even be said that neither of them are official world titles; more like honorary trinkets or metaphysical lineages.

One thing's for sure, I'm very much in favour of not having a "Lineal" column anymore. I once supported its inclusion, but it's proven to be more trouble than it's worth, especially because of the Fury situation. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that as long as The Ring is included, the TBRB should be included. The TBRB's rankings are often considered by fans and by people involved in the sport as the best. The Ring has been questioned for its biases towards Golden Boy fighters, and more generally towards ones based in the U.S. In my opinion, the TBRB are not all they're cracked up to be, and their inability to make any of their "contenders" fight makes them somewhat useless, but I'd say they hold more credibility than The Ring. Even if the latter has obviously had much more influence on the sport throughout history.

With all that being said, removing both of them would also be fine by me. As I said, currently neither of them have much bearing, if any, on match-making, so even if they may have more credibility with boxing fans, including them here isn't entirely necessary. Fpwlada (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Returning to this, I am favour of removing both The Ring and lineal columns, but this needs input from User:Claudevsq, who has maintained this article for many years. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, now suddenly does it? Did you forget that I quit maintaining this list because of YOU, after I updated it on a daily basis for nearly 10 years? No way I'm getting back into this! Anyways, I'm making like 95% of all edits nowadays from my mobile, without logging in... claudevsq (talk) 08:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Pff, fine then.. Nice of you to let us know where you stand. I'm honoured to have been such a profound influence on your editing(!) Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

So are we all in favour of removing both columns? Fpwlada (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I would like User:SaskatchewanSenator's opinion before any change is made. A two-editor consensus isn't the best of platforms. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I've come up with a mock which would allow us to keep all the information currently in the article. It's in this link: User:Fpwlada/sandbox. Template:WBCstart would need to be edited and some of the text needs to be rewritten, but I feel organizing the article in that way would be a good compromise. Fpwlada (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

What happens with Fury, Stevenson and Rigondeaux? The combined columns fall apart with them. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

So I'm presuming you all have decided to keep the lineal title column? My suggestion is to modify the column title to Lineal (TBRB) since its specifically TBRB's version of the lineal title. I think its important to be specific about what's readers are looking at. DA1 (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm in for Lineal (TBRB), formatted as "Lineal (TBRB)" – [[Lineal championship|Lineal]] ([[Transnational Boxing Rankings Board|TBRB]]) Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I think we had consensus that, if we were going to keep the TBRB column, we didn't want the title be "Lineal." The Ring's titles are also lineal and I don't think we want that column title to be Lineal (The Ring).SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

After much flip-flopping, I think we should remove all mention of lineal titles from this article, including whatever TBRB and CBZ say. More trouble than they're worth. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of flip-flopping, now we have the TBRB giving a wordy spiel about how Álvarez–Golovkin II was for the lineal middleweight title after all – [1]. What a bunch of smoke and mirrors, all for an intangible "championship" that doesn't even exist outside of petty debates. I implore the members of WikiProject Boxing to agree to remove these damn pseudo championships from this list. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I was surprised to see the TBRB reverse its decision over Canelo's failed drug tests. I agree we should remove the Lineal paragraph and column.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and zapped the lineals from here and {{WBCstart}}. Editors have had almost a year to say their piece—if they're that passionate about it, they had their chance. I'm still not overly fussed on getting rid of the The Ring as well, for reasons above, but let's let this one settle first. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I miss the lineal column, though I would agree that calling it the TBRB title would be better. Someone like Rigo who was stripped by sanctioning bodies but is the true lineal champion should still be recognized. More to the point, someone who has a casual interest in boxing and going to Wikipedia to see who is the recognized champion would benefit from having the extra information of who TBRB is recognizing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theazor99 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't miss it one bit—gone is the edit warring over Fury, Álvarez, Mikey, etc. This list is for world champions who possess an actual title by the main four recognised sanctioning bodies, not a mythical family tree which only exists in subjective fan-lists. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. So in that case, why not zap the Ring column, too? I think there should be consistency--either include a TNRB column alongside the Ring or just limit to the major sanctioning bodies. I still think that a person visiting this page looking for recognized champions would benefit from knowing who the TNRB is recognizing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theazor99 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

If enough others want The Ring gone too, I don't have a problem with it. They're a semi-"world title".. and they're also not. We already don't include the IBO for good reason, so perhaps it's best The Ring should be gone too. The TBRB can have their own mention (or a "See also") within the Ring's subsection, and an external link at the bottom—should suffice. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I would be happy to see The Ring title removed if we're aiming to limit to the major sanctioning bodies. They seem to have convinced some people that their title is somehow the traditional (lineal) world title, but it's nonsense, and in reality it's not a major title. WBC and WBA, and to a lesser extent the IBF and WBO, are still the titles that have the most prestige. The TNRB isn't something that anyone really cares about. The IBO title is more significant than that one. If we're going to include any world title with any significance, than I'd keep The Ring and also add the IBO. --Michig (talk) 13:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I would also like to see The Ring gone from this list. Major four world titles only. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

The Ring titles should stay. They are "major" titles with more credibility than most or all the sanctioning bodies. This is reflected in their coverage by boxing media.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected

I have semi-protected the page due to persistent edit-warring over Andy Ruiz Jr.'s nationality. Any interested editors should attempt to reach consensus on the talk page of the Ruiz article. --Michig (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

One word champion per sanctioning body?

We all know that regular, interim, etc. champions are not considered by anyone in the sport to be real world champions. It's bad enough that we have multiple world champions via multiple sanctioning bodies in the first place. Wouldn't it be better to limit this list to the 'top' 'world champion' for each sanctioning body, e.g. only WBA 'Super' champions, and no interim champions from other bodies? All the lesser belts can be listed on the pages for each sanctioning body. --Michig (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm in semi-agreement with this. Mainstream media continues to legitimise Regular titles and refer to the existence of parallel WBA champions, so I can't see how we on WP can take the liberty of delegitimising them at this point in time. I believe it would take a widespread initiative within the boxing world to enforce a change here.

Interim titles, however, I would not be against dropping from this article, but only if they are then mentioned within the sanctioning body articles—currently they are not, which makes it confusing to navigate through them (which boxer got promoted to what, etc.) Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

One could argue that Silver Champions, Interim Silver Champions, International Champions, Intercontinental Champions, etc. are all 'world-level' titles. None of these have 'world' in the title, but then neither does the WBA Gold Champion, which is included, so it isn't clear to me what the criteria are for inclusion here. Limiting to the highest level belt from each sanctioning body would make more sense to me. --Michig (talk) 10:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The abovementioned Silver, International, etc. titles are considered sub-world/regional level by the sanctioning bodies themselves, so they arent the issue. However, the unfortunate reality we face is that the WBA genuinely considers Super and Regular world champions to be equals, as does the mainstream media, promoters and boxers themselves. As I said, I don't think it is up to us on WP to start initiatives until those three outlets make a concerted effort to delegitimise such parallel titles. I would nonetheless be happy to see Interim, Gold and In Recess titles be removed from the list. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem with Regular and Interim being listed as they're considered "world champions" by the sanctioning bodies. But I think Recess and Gold needs to be dropped from the list. Recess (WBA) is like Emeritus (WBC) while Gold (WBA) is like Silver and Diamond (WBC), both aren't listed in the sanctioning bodies' "world champions" list. PinoyBoxing11 (talk) 06:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Reputable mainstream media does not consider interims to be world champions—they're essentially no better than Silver or Gold. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I would remove Gold, but keep in recess, which usually denotes an injured actual champion, definitely keep Super and Regular, and I'm 85% certain Interim WBA titles should count too. As others have said, it's not up to wikipedia to define what the WBA considers a World title. MaineCrab (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with you about keeping the "in recess" titles for the WBC, but the way the WBA manipulates them it doesn't seem to denote anything.
• The gold titles should go. They're not a world champion, just a glorified No. 1 contender.
• Interim titles used to mean something, but they don't seem to anymore.
• Listing only the "top" WBA champion is a good idea.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Can we now agree to at least ditch the Gold champions? We've established that, despite whatever promotional bullshit the WBA tries to spew, they are not classed as actual world titles akin to Super and Regular. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of Gold champion. Also with In recess champion. PinoyBoxing11 (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Why do you want to keep interim titles but not the WBC's in recess?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Interim world champions are recognized by each organizations as "world champions" and that they can defend it, some can even bring them to full title fights. In-recess are given as a status to inactive champions stripped of their world titles. Can't remember anyone with In-recess title who got their world title back if vacant without fighting the #1 contender or the Interim champion, unlike Interim who can be elevated to full world title. PinoyBoxing11 (talk) 05:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

By definition, you wouldn't defend an "in recess" title. Off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure Rigondeaux got his title back, but usually they aren't vacant. The usual process is the "in recess" guy is mandatory for the interim or full title holder.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

In Recess champions no longer hold a championship—just a #1 contender status—unlike interims. It's that difference which makes me less averse to keeping interims on the article, but I still won't complain if they go too. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Why do you write they "no longer hold a championship"? An "in recess" champion won a real world championship and never lost it. I wouldn't mind going down to one title per sanctioning body, but if we keep anything more it should be the "in recess" titles.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Tense is key—they won a real world championship, but are no longer the current holder of it. Their 'In recess' status equates to #1 contender, not actual belt holder. Anthony Dirrell is the WBC super middleweight champion; not David Benavidez. On the other hand, both the WBA 'Super' and 'Regular' titles are considered world championships by mainstream media, but I've yet to see the 'In recess' status being given the same treatment. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree. One could say the same about interim champions, that their "status equates to #1 contender, not actual belt holder."

I don't think anyone was comparing the WBA "Regular' titles (although perhaps we should) and certainly not the WBA's 'Super' titles to "in recess" titles, but "in recess" champions are treated like "actual belt holders" by the sanctioning bodies and reliable sources.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

So let's ditch both interims and Recess. That would streamline the article. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

If it doesn't look like we're going to make any progress discussing this specific issue further, I could agree on a compromise to go down to one champion per sanctioning body--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Gold/recess champion

Hi, I think is incorrect to list gold champions (see the new ranks WBA, in 168 the gold champion win it in a 10 rounds fight) and champions in recess. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.110.184.70 (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The Gold Champion is not a world champion, hence the name of the title. --Michig (talk) 11:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Franchise champion isn't "honorary trinkets" Check new WBC rules: https://wbcboxing.com/en/saul-canelo-alvarez-wbc-franchise-champion/ :

4. The Franchise Champion will proudly represent the WBC in every single fight as a reigning WBC champion, regardless of any specific conditions or titles being associated with all future fights. WBC rules and regulations will govern under the traditional conditions of boxing in the Franchise champion fights. WBC will approve through the franchise champion promoter every opponent scheduled to fight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qrivas (talk • contribs) 08:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

That's one source, by the corrupt WBC themselves (WP:INDEPENDENT). Now provide sources which show that the majority of mainstream media considers them world champions. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

But it is defended in a similar light as WBO's Super Champion. It's not an actual transferable title but a "privilege". PinoyBoxing11 (talk) 11:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

WBC "Franchise" titles

This discussion should've been started by the myriad users and IPs who insist that this bogus 'status'—the "Franchise" title—is equal to a world championship. Either way, here's a collection of articles from mainstream media in which the legitimacy of the "Franchise" title is called into question:

• [2] – "[...] the WBC gave him the ridiculous title of franchise champion, which does nothing but confuse the public and prevent growth among the casual fans."

• [3] – "[...] the WBC's new invention made up out of nowhere, the franchise title."

• [4] – "As for the title mess, the 'Franchise Champion' was created by the WBC Board of Governors during a recent mid-year meeting in Honolulu as a special status for someone 'who has achieved and maintains the highest of statures in the sport'"

• [5] – "Canelo and Vasyl Lomachenko were recently elevated to Franchise Champions in a move that has led to considerable confusion."

• [6] – "In a baffling move the WBC make Jermall Charlo champion and Canelo Alvarez 'franchise' titlist."

• [7] – "[...] the absurd decision by the WBC to make Alvarez the 'Franchise Champion,' a designation that makes no sense."

• [8] – "After receiving widespread ridicule for promoting Canelo Alvarez to 'Franchise Champion,' essentially making him their middleweight champion forever, the WBC have bestowed the same dubious honor upon lightweight ruler Vasiliy Lomachenko."

• [9] – "Days ago the boxing world was shocked by the announcement of the creation of one more meaningless paper belt."

And an official statement from the WBC themselves, confirming that it is nothing more than an honorary title:

• [10] – "This designation is not transferable and is exclusively to the fighter who receives such designation", meaning another boxer cannot even win this supposed 'world title' in the ring!

In the case of any future edit wars, discussion should take place here and not via edit summaries. Without a consensus on how to handle this "Franchise" situation, any attempts to add them to the article should be reverted on sight. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Also consider WP:PRIMARY and WP:WEIGHT when discussing sources. While adherence to WP:CS is a good thing, this is poor practice because it uses only the WBC's own publications as sources, which violates WP:NPOV. As for WP:WEIGHT, the same applies in that the WBC's own puffery must be viewed objectively against the near-unanimous derision and rejection (i.e., that "Franchise" titles are on par with real world titles) by mainstream media, as highlighted in my post above. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Name should be changed

The name of the page or the article should be: List of current MALE world boxing champions. It is never mentioned in the page, which is a bit weird and maybe even condescending towards females. I know there is a link to a page with the female champs, but it is a bit strange that you call this page current world champions and that for the females you specify it. Garnhami (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree with renaming the article accordingly. Feedback, please, from other editors. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Neutral with this as it was not called as such in any organization, ranking bodies nor the Queensberry rules. But then, we now have female champions. PinoyBoxing11 (talk) 07:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Agree. While we have separate pages they should have titles accurately describing the content. --Michig (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

What do you propose should be at "List of current world boxing champions"? A disambiguation page?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Bridgerweight

How would this page handle Bridgerweight should it pushes through? PinoyBoxing11 (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

*groan* It's a damn headache for all of us, that much is certain. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

A new template, {{WBCbridger}}, is ready for use. It's simply the existing {{WBCstart}} as used on this article, but obviously omits the other organisations. When the time comes, the table below can simply be added between heavyweight and cruiserweight:

===Bridgerweight (224 lb/102 kg)=== {{WBCbridger}} | style="text-align:center;"|[[Boxer Name Here]]<br>{{FLAGICON HERE}}<br>0–0 (0 KO)<br>[date] 2021 {{end}}

Thanks a lot, We Be Crooks(!) Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing this one! Them too much complicating things out with Diamond, Emeritus, Franchise, Bridger. PinoyBoxing11 (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments for Vacant

Isn't the vacant WBC Cruiserweight title on the line for Briedis-Dorticos - December 14? The Ring Cruiserweight is on the line as well. PinoyBoxing11 (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

No, the WBC just recently announced that their vacant cruiserweight title will be on the line between Silver titlist Ilunga Makabu, and TBA, on a date and location TBA. claudevsq (talk) 07:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Rigondeaux-Solis seems to be set on Dec. 7, Makabu-Glowacki is also ordered by WBC for their vacant title. PinoyBoxing11 (talk) 11:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Seems does not mean done. BTW, whatever the WBC ordered, Głowacki has yet to decide if he wants to fight for the WBO title or not. I see that, with Makabu ranked #1 by the WBC, Michal Cieslak, ranked #4 last month, is ranked #2 this month by the WBC. I believe Głowacki will still go the WBO route, but I guess time will tell... claudevsq (talk) 11:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

This time, Rigondeaux-Solis is set December 21. PinoyBoxing11 (talk) 03:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Yep! claudevsq (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

WBO Cruiserweight is now vacant and is in line for Glowacki. PinoyBoxing11 (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Makabu could well end up fighting Włodarczyk, and Głowacki will probably fight Okolie. This week is the WBO convention, so, we'll maybe see some decisions... Like, Munguia is expected to relinquish his title, and in that case, they will normally elevate Teixeira from interim to regular champion... claudevsq (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

WBO Flyweight is now vacant as well. PinoyBoxing11 (talk) 07:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Really glad that WBC Bridgerweight remains vacant. Hoping it would be junked for good. Also, Super WBA Flyweight is missing from the vacant list? PinoyBoxing11 (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Bridgerweight will not stay vacant forever... As for WBA Super title at flyweight, super titles are never vacant, just like interim titles... I list interim titles which will be on the line soon, and if I knew of a fight for the free WBA Super title, I would list it, but there's not... claudevsq (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

WBA Bantamweight (the Regular one) is now vacant as well. PinoyBoxing11 (talk) 11:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Not yet. It will become vacant as soon as Figueroa steps intoo the ring against Fulton on September 18th. BTW, you are talking about the regular super bantamweight title. Or do you mean Rigo? His title was not on the line against Casimero, but AFAIK, he still holds his WBA title: https://www.wbaboxing.com/wba-champions#.YR969XxxdGM claudevsq (talk) 09:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Rigo's. WBA already mentioned that his title will be vacant once he steps into the ring against Casimero as they didn't approve the fight with respect to the WBO rules. PinoyBoxing11 (talk) 02:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I believe it's time to remove the WBA Light Heavyweight (Regular) from the vacant list? With WBA's current elimination they won't be filling that vacancy. PinoyBoxing11 (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

WBA single champ and remove Interim champs and champion in recess

WBA has at most 4 champs in their cells including the champion in recess, this causes confusion to casuals wanting to know the champions per sanctioning bodies. Should we just list the highest tier WBA champ? IBF, WBO, and The Ring only lists the highest tier WBA champ on their rankings.

The tiers inorder are:

• Super
  
• Undisputed
• Unified
• World

And also remove interim and champion in recess? BlizzyBlizz (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

A similar idea was proposed during the lineal and Ring title debates some years ago. It's an interesting yet daunting proposition. We could certainly collate enough sources that explicitly (and rightfully) de-recognise Regular titles, but there'd be just as many—if not more—blindly going along with the WBA's dual-champion bullshit; mainly mainstream media.

I would like to read others' opinions before committing to my own, but what I will say is that we at WikiProject Boxing could potentially do our part—as the IBF and WBO already have—in only acknowledging one champion per sanctioning body. I'm talking about influencing mainstream opinion. No doubt many boxing fans, boxers and promoters alike regularly visit this exact article to see who the champions are. Just sayin'.. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm game for removing recess champions as that's an honorary title. I'm also up for removing interim champions; regardless of the fact that it's a load of bollocks, the sanctioning bodies don't treat their interim champions the same. Dillian Whyte isn't ranked within the WBC, he's listed as a champion, yet Dubois holds the WBA version along with a number 1 ranking. The WBA's essentially guarantees a mandatory position, whereas the WBC's, as we've seen, doesn't. So it can't be argued they're equivalent amongst themselves, let alone the other sanctioning bodies' actual world titles. Definitely scrap those two. I'm slightly on the fence with the WBA (Regular) though, but I'm more than willing to be convinced either way. – ².O.^Boxing 15:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I mean champion in recess is weird af. When you look at Mahmoud Charr, he is the champion in recess at heavyweight but he's not exactly the highest tier champion before he was stripped as opposed to Manny Pacquiao who is the champion in recess but for the Super title. Pacquiao can challenge Ugas right away for the Super belt while Charr can't challenge Joshua for the Super belt because Charr wasn't the Super champion before Joshua. BlizzyBlizz (talk) 02:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Mac Dreamstate okay, how are users gonna decide? Are we gonna vote? BlizzyBlizz (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

We definitely need more users, and possibly an RfC. This is a high-significance article, and such changes cannot be made without full consensus. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 11:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay Mac Dreamstate. Sounds fair. BlizzyBlizz (talk) 08:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

After some thought, I'm leaning towards the removal of Regular champions as well as interim and "in recess". They're not recognised as world champions by the other major sanctioning bodies, and they're consistently referred to as "secondary" champions in the media. This article should list those that are universally recognised as full world champions. And if Regular champions are removed, i think the Super champions should still be listed as such here. – ².O.^Boxing 11:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that Champion-in-recess must be removed as this status is not even defendable nor winnable. Regular, for now I disagree since WBC (via Brandon Figueroa) and IBF (via Naoya Inoue before winning the Super) somewhat recognize it, and that there are some champions like Dalakian which is recognized as such instead of Super. Interim, it may stay since it is a title only won via 12-round bout like normal championships and is also recognized for unifications by other organizations (via Robert Guerrero case of unifying interim titles and Gennady Golovkin case) but I don't mind it being removed. PinoyBoxing11 (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

PinoyBoxing11, IBF doesn't recognize Regular champs. The WBA Regular title that Inoue had wasn't on the line when he fought Rodríguez for the vacant IBF title. Just last January, IBF refused to sanction Warrington's supposed unification match with former Regular champ Xu Can and then recently WBO's president openly stated that they will only recognize 1 champion per division and refused to recognize the "unification" between WBO champ Casimero and WBA Regular champ Rigondeaux. That's 2 of the 3 sanctioning bodies. If you add The Ring then thats 3/4. BlizzyBlizz (talk) 08:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Another example would be on 29th of October 2015, the IBF denied the supposed unification of former IBF champ Frampton and WBA Regular champ Quigg. IBF stated that it wasn't considered a unification because they recognized Rigondeaux as the WBA champion. The following day, the WBA declared Rigondeaux as champion in recess thus forfeiting Rigo's title. Now Quigg is the only WBA champ left and is now considered a unification bout. What a coincedence. BlizzyBlizz (talk) 08:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

In the case of the WBA switching statuses around, like promoting a Regular champion to Super or demoting a Super champion to In Recess, we'd have to make sure we keep on top of that at all times. It's likely we could get misguided fans, or those with an agenda, trying to either reintroduce the split titles or (if they're really a dumbass) label a Regular champion as the "real" one over an existing Super champion. Just look what's happened with the WBC Franchise title—quite often an idiot will come around trying to say López is the real WBC champion instead of Haney.

All the more reason I wholeheartedly support ditching Regular, interim and In Recess champions from this article. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

We should just list the tiers of the WBA titles and just note that the page would only list the highest tier belt since WBA loves to throw around a lot of terms. Like a Unified champion maybe a Regular champion as with the case of Inoue before winning the Super title against Donaire and then you got Daniel Roman who was labeled as a Unified champion but was not considered a Regular champion. The title later turned into Super champion when he lost to Murudjon. The weird ass things that I had to research to seperate all those terms in reconstructing the list of WBA world champions was hell. BlizzyBlizz (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Thing is, I always thought WBA Unified/Undisputed was above WBA Super—just the impression I got. There was a period in 2013 where, at 154 lbs, Mayweather held the Super title whilst Álvarez held the Unified title. Can we be absolutely sure of displaying the right 'tiers' in such a scenario? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I guess so since Super has always been the highest tier title. Undisputed on the other hand has some weird crap when they did it at featherweight; the WBA declared Vetyeka an Undisputed champion after beating Chris John without holding any other belts. Donaire then won the title and later lost to Regular champ Walters. Walters however, wasn't declared and listed as the Undisputed champ and stayed as Regular champ up until they decided to promote him to Super champ. The Unified champion is ambiguous and inconsistent (Inoue–Donaire & Canelo–Mayweather cases). Lastly, the Regular champion only matters when all remaining titles are vacant, as with the case with current flyweight champion Artem Dalakian. BlizzyBlizz (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh man, the Vetyeka/Donaire situation is where I gave up trying to figure out the WBA's logic(!) on this matter. Another scenario which would complicate things is when they elevate a Super champion to Unified/Undisputed status (e.g., Fury and Kovalev in 2015), whilst declaring a new Super champion. Would we then demote the new Unified/Undisputed champion to secondary status, and replace them with the new Super champion? It's a damn headache, isn't it..? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, based on the way WBA does their rankings, Super has always been their highest tier belt. I thought it was Undisputed but the Vetyeka/Donaire case puts it to second. They also did this at bantamweight, they declared Juan Carlos Payano as Undisputed but later on the lineage they changed it to Unified champion after Zhakiyanov lost to IBF champion Ryan Burnett. Burnett was stripped on Feb 2018 but was still recognized as Unified champion even if he was holding only 1 belt. They later changed his status to Super on the october rankings; just days before Burnett fought Donaire. The worst part was there were no articles that says Burnett was upgraded to Super, I had to look up their monthly rankings to figure it out. WBA sneaked the act of upgrading him to Super. BlizzyBlizz (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

On closer inspection, I think it might be safe to say that Unified/Undisputed is a tier below Super. Austin Trout entered as the WBA Regular champion against Álvarez, whilst Mayweather had held the WBA Super title since defeating Miguel Cotto in 2012. It indicates that the second-tier Regular champion (Trout), followed by Álvarez (Unified) stayed as such, whilst Mayweather never lost his highest-tier Super status—he even retained it after defeating Álvarez, rather than usurping the Unified title. In fact, it was your edits earlier in the year which brought that detail to my attention. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 01:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

A similiar situation would be Inoue, he got the Super title when he defeated Donaire instead of retaining his "Unified" title. Well anyways, I look forward to recognizing only one WBA champion. It maybe confusing at first but at least we can do our own part in standing up to WBA's crap. BlizzyBlizz (talk) 01:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I think I proposed something similar a couple of years ago. Since then it looks like the 'Gold' champions have been removed at least. The interim and in-recess 'champions' are not world champions any more than the 'global', 'international, or 'intercontinental' champions are world champions. The WBA Regular arguably was the WBA world title briefly, but that was a long time ago, and since we only list current champions here, I'd say get rid of that too. Presumably all these 'champions' are listed on in the sanctioning body articles, so we wouldn't be losing any information by removing them here. --Michig (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

"The WBA Regular arguably was the WBA world title briefly, but that was a long time ago"—absolutely. I only recently realised that, to use heavyweight as an example, Haye was the last to hold that division's original WBA world title without any silly suffixes. This then morphed immediately into the Super title when Klitschko won it in 2011, then split a few months later to the vacant Regular title won by Povetkin. That was indeed a long time ago, therefore it's not a difficult task in determining the hierarchy of heavyweight Super/Regular. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The BBC does it. We should too.--Jahalive (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Huge news! Association of Boxing Commissions called WBA out and threatened to not recognize their titles if they don't reduce it. Source: Yahoo Sports

Now we have hope. BlizzyBlizz (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Even if nothing happens and the WBA carries on with their shenanigans, we now at least have the ABC (along with the IBF and WBO) as a very credible source de-recognising anything other than Super titles. It bodes well for this article, but we can't rush things. Let it play out until perhaps the end of the year, when more title fights have taken place, and see what the situation is. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Good move by WBA here: https://www.boxingscene.com/wba-eliminates-interim-titles-effective-immediately--160124 I hope WBC, IBF and WBO will follow the suit for the Interim Champions as well. PinoyBoxing11 (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Support removing anything other than World Champion. Interim and the rest are just laughable fluff. Belevalo (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

You and your cheeky edits. Why so hasty? Despite what's been discussed on this topic, that does not mean a consensus to remove Regular and interim champions has yet been reached. If you'd merely taken the time to read what I wrote only a month ago, you'd see that the best course of action is to let the WBA make good—or renege—on their promises first, then invoke secondary sources to deprecate them once for all. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

And still he's at it. Let it be known, that's poor form and not in the spirit of GF at all. Again, did you not read what I wrote above regarding waiting a while longer, or are you just being difficult for the sake of it? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

there are about 5 people who are unsatisfied with current format and would just leave the most senior position. you are the only one desperatly it seems trying to hold onto every fluff title. sorry, but concensus is against all these confusing titles.Belevalo (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

No, you're purposely being difficult and ignoring everything I write—therefore your conduct is flat-out wrong, and you're a liar. I am all for removing them, but not not yet, because the new measures by the WBA are still in early stages. They aren't even close to finished with abolishing all Regular titles, and interims are still very much a thing in WBC circles. We haven't even finished hashing out what to do regarding Super/Unified/Undisputed champions if they ever return.

You're the only one who's showed up and gone against WP:BRD—that being removed content, got challenged, said your piece, then removed again repeatedly, therefore edit warring. You've also left a trail of broken tables because of your halfhearted edits, so fix them. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Based on consensus reached here (and add me, so 6 to 1, or if you were being honest when you said you would aim to remove them after the WBA failed to keep their word, 7-0) I am going to remove WBA regular champions from the article. Consensus was clearly reached on this matter. Thespearthrower (talk) 04:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The Ring

I didn't see an answer to this when I searched by why are "The Ring" Champions included? The four major belts are WBA, WBO, WBC, IBF. You never hear anyone in boxing commentary or news ever talk about "The Ring". They mention ESPN's pound for pound rankings more than anything else. This is supposed to be a list of champions holding belts is it not? 73.239.49.235 (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The last discussion on removing Ring titles from the article was four years ago, but was inconclusive. I'm still in favour of removing them. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I would agree, any boxing fan can tell you there are four major belts. WBA, WBC, WBO, IBF. I don't think The Ring is a big factor in modern boxing. I never hear announcers, fighters, or sports journalists talk about it. I would be interested to hear the argument that it is still relevant. I think we all know what is happening to print media these days.

If nobody speaks up in support of it I think it should be removed. 2601:602:67F:81E6:F946:8D4A:EE63:557B (talk) 03:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I disagree on removing The Ring. Historically, The Ring was one of the first entities who awarded belts. There are some who talks about the belt though. Even in the upcoming Spence vs. Crawford. PinoyBoxing11 (talk) 03:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

References