Talk:List of current world boxing champions

Vacant

November 23: Super WBA Super Featherweight: Leo Santa Cruz (MEX) - Miguel Flores (USA)

November 30: WBA Welterweight: Alexander Besputin (RUS) - Radzhab Butaev (RUS)

December 7: WBA interim Middleweight: Chris Eubank Jr (GBR) - Matvey Korobov (USA)

December 13: WBC Flyweight: Julio César Martínez Aguilar (MEX) - Cristofer Rosales (NIC)

December 28: WBA Lightweight: Gervonta Davis (USA) - Yuriorkis Gamboa (CUB)

The Ring Cruiserweight: Mairis Briedis (LVA) - Yuniel Dorticós (CUB)

WBA Bantamweight: Liborio Solís (VEN) - Guillermo Rigondeaux (CUB)

WBC Cruiserweight: Ilunga Makabu (DRC) - TBA

claudevsq (talk) 09:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.

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)