A PLEA TO THE WBA
Please do something about the title structure within your organisation. I understand that as a sanctioning body one of your requirements is to generate revenue by collecting a percentage of the purses of fighters who fight for the titles you put up for grabs. This tiered system of “Super” and “Regular” champions has to stop though. It is confusing, off-putting and perhaps even slightly intimidating for new fans of the sport trying to get a sense for who is the best boxer in each division, which titles are prestigious and which ones should be disregarded.
From a purely selfish point of view I will say this – I enjoy writing about boxing and try to provide the readers with accurate facts where possible. This means that I diligently check exactly which titles are on the line when previewing/reporting a bout. In the case of the WBA it means an extra layer of research. I don't mind this but what I will gripe about is the ridiculous terminology and feeling that it only serves to confuse all but hardcore boxing fans. It would just be better if it was simplified to one title holder then a clear ranking system below said champion.
I read a few dispatches this week which portrayed the WBA in a positive light. The decision to order immediate rematches for the poorly judged N'Dam-Murata and Barthelemy-Relikh fights last weekend is to be applauded. You even went further by suspending the two worst offending judges. Again this is a terrific step in the right direction. I was also pleased when I saw your organisation would be taking nothing to do with the Floyd Mayweather-Connor McGregor farce. These three actions indicate that common sense is very much alive and well within your governing body. I implore you to apply this same sensible approach when you next review the framework of your world title belts. Sometimes less is more. In this case less titles would definitely be better.