Which belt is more relevant? WBO World Belt or WBA World Belt (regular)

[BoliviaChiLEsp]

I'm curious.

I mean the WBA regular belt not the super one.

Thanks in advance.

[Robbie Barrett]

WBA regular is basically the same as the WBC silver. You can't have 2 world champions for the same org per division.

[Willy Wanker]

WBA regular isn't relevant at all. It's basically a "world" title belt for the #1 Contender/mandatory challenger.

[BoliviaChiLEsp]

WBA regular isn't relevant at all. It's basically a "world" title belt for the #1 Contender/mandatory challenger.

Thurman who doesn't have the Super belt.

Don't you consider him a World Champion (there is no Super Champion in his division)?


Thanks.

[Lester Tutor]

Word on the street that Saunders wants to trade his belt for the WBA regular!

[Willy Wanker]

Thurman who doesn't have the Super belt.

Don't you consider him a World Champion (there is no Super Champion in his division)?


Thanks.

Yes he is, under those cirumstances. But the WBA's system is screwed up and pretty confusing especially when the interim champions are added into the mix. Look at MW for example. they have a super, regular, and interim champ. So is the interim champ an interim for Golovkin or Jacobs? It's just unnecessary.

[BoliviaChiLEsp]

Yes he is, under those cirumstances. But the WBA's system is screwed up and pretty confusing especially when the interim champions are added into the mix. Look at MW for example. they have a super, regular, and interim champ. So is the interim champ an interim for Golovkin or Jacobs? It's just unnecessary.

So my takeaway of this thread is:

The equivalent of WBC, IBF and WBO Champion is the WBA Super Champion.

[Jewish-Reptile]

The WBA title id say is no less a title or more than the IBF WBO or WBC. The wba regular is certainly a lesser title than the wbo world title, yet the confusing part now, is their even a super title around now the unified champ has been stripped for drug use.

If the super title is now out of the picture the regular title is on equal parity as the wbo in my opinion. The only belt I hold in low regard now is the IBO but I can understand why some would feel the major three titles are more prestigious than the wbo.

[techliam]

So my takeaway of this thread is:

The equivalent of WBC, IBF and WBO Champion is the WBA Super Champion.

The equivalent is the WBA belt. If there are two 'champions' then only the super champion is recognised

[Citizen Koba]

So my takeaway of this thread is:

The equivalent of WBC, IBF and WBO Champion is the WBA Super Champion.

Just to clarify the officially stated purpose of the WBA 'Super' title is for WBA world champions who are also champions for one the other orgs. ie. It's a belt for unified champs. The reason, they say, is to allow for less regular defences in acknowledgement of the responsibilities a unified champ has to defend his non-WBA titles. Apparently it was instigated at the suggestion of Lennox Lewis. Myself, I think it's a crock and basically an excuse for more sanctioning fees, but I can see the logic behind it.