The vacant 168lb WBC trinket will be on the line for Froch vs Abe

A report in Golzka states that the WBC agreed with a protest that was submitted by Carl Froch, to have the vacant super middleweight title on the line in his fight with Arthur Abraham on November 27 in Helsinki, Finland.

The sanctioning organization had approved the vacant title to be on the line for Andre Dirrell's challenge of WBA champion Andre Ward. Dirrell is the number one contender with Froch falling at second and Abraham at third.

Ward and Dirrell never reached an agreement for a fight on September 25, for the vacant WBC title, and their contest was rescheduled to the same date of November 27, but there is still no agreed upon location to stage their event. Their failure to reach a deal, left the opening for a title fight between the next two contenders, Froch and Abraham.

http://www.boxingscene.com/?m=show&id=31552

You do this just to ruin my day don't you?

marbleheadmaui wrote:

You do this just to ruin my day don't you?

Hahahah I almost put " turn away now Marble " in the title

Ali_1748 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

You do this just to ruin my day don't you?

Hahahah I almost put " turn away now Marble " in the title

The jihad against trinket references WILL continue and you infidels better watch out!!!!!!!!!

I agree with marble. Who cares about trinkets!!!

captainanddew wrote:

I agree with marble. Who cares about trinkets!!!

Froch obviously cares enough to protest a decision, but to be fair he should've always had first crack at it after the close fight with Kessler.

I don't understand why any of these trophies means anything to these fighters. Do they have to fight for the so called title? Can't they tell the WBC to go screw? That's what I would do. If some third party wanted to stuck their hands in my pocket so I could wear a belt that means nothing and dictates who I fight I would tell them thanks but no thanks.

hardcoreBEE24 wrote:

I don't understand why any of these trophies means anything to these fighters. Do they have to fight for the so called title? Can't they tell the WBC to go screw? That's what I would do. If some third party wanted to stuck their hands in my pocket so I could wear a belt that means nothing and dictates who I fight I would tell them thanks but no thanks.

Look I have great admiration for fighters, but they generally aren't the most educated or sophisticated thinkers.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

hardcoreBEE24 wrote:

I don't understand why any of these trophies means anything to these fighters. Do they have to fight for the so called title? Can't they tell the WBC to go screw? That's what I would do. If some third party wanted to stuck their hands in my pocket so I could wear a belt that means nothing and dictates who I fight I would tell them thanks but no thanks.

Look I have great admiration for fighters, but they generally aren't the most educated or sophisticated thinkers.

Carl is extremely intelligent, the problem is he still believes it's a valid world title, along with alot of other boxers out there.

Ali_1748 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

hardcoreBEE24 wrote:

I don't understand why any of these trophies means anything to these fighters. Do they have to fight for the so called title? Can't they tell the WBC to go screw? That's what I would do. If some third party wanted to stuck their hands in my pocket so I could wear a belt that means nothing and dictates who I fight I would tell them thanks but no thanks.

Look I have great admiration for fighters, but they generally aren't the most educated or sophisticated thinkers.

Carl is extremely intelligent, the problem is he still believes it's a valid world title, along with alot of other boxers out there.

That belief demonstrates a lack of intelligence and/or insight.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Ali_1748 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

hardcoreBEE24 wrote:

I don't understand why any of these trophies means anything to these fighters. Do they have to fight for the so called title? Can't they tell the WBC to go screw? That's what I would do. If some third party wanted to stuck their hands in my pocket so I could wear a belt that means nothing and dictates who I fight I would tell them thanks but no thanks.

Look I have great admiration for fighters, but they generally aren't the most educated or sophisticated thinkers.

Carl is extremely intelligent, the problem is he still believes it's a valid world title, along with alot of other boxers out there.

That belief demonstrates a lack of intelligence and/or insight.

Nonsense, until the majority of fans stop respecting the trinkets boxers will continue to worship them.

Wladimir adores his IBO belt but he's hardly a dummy.

Ali_1748 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Ali_1748 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

hardcoreBEE24 wrote:

I don't understand why any of these trophies means anything to these fighters. Do they have to fight for the so called title? Can't they tell the WBC to go screw? That's what I would do. If some third party wanted to stuck their hands in my pocket so I could wear a belt that means nothing and dictates who I fight I would tell them thanks but no thanks.

Look I have great admiration for fighters, but they generally aren't the most educated or sophisticated thinkers.

Carl is extremely intelligent, the problem is he still believes it's a valid world title, along with alot of other boxers out there.

That belief demonstrates a lack of intelligence and/or insight.

Nonsense, until the majority of fans stop respecting the trinkets boxers will continue to worship them.

Wladimir adores his IBO belt but he's hardly a dummy.

The majority view on ANYTHING carries ZERO validity simply because it is the majority.

The idea that fighters can't understand one simple idea, That a WORLD championship CANNOT be shared and STILL be a WORLD championship absolutely demonstrates dismal understanding. Fighters hould be leading the way and teaching fans that for the words WORLD CHAMPION to mean anything there can only be one.

The Super-Six 168 lb. tourney has had some really bizzare results, I'd bet that Abe-Froch will be much of the same thing.

Who do you kats pick to win this scrap? (if it happens)

I'm leaning towards Abraham by KO, but who knows, in any event, it should be a hell of a fight.

Ali_1748 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

hardcoreBEE24 wrote:

I don't understand why any of these trophies means anything to these fighters. Do they have to fight for the so called title? Can't they tell the WBC to go screw? That's what I would do. If some third party wanted to stuck their hands in my pocket so I could wear a belt that means nothing and dictates who I fight I would tell them thanks but no thanks.

Look I have great admiration for fighters, but they generally aren't the most educated or sophisticated thinkers.

Carl is extremely intelligent, the problem is he still believes it's a valid world title, along with alot of other boxers out there.

Gotta be for tradition or endorsements. Makes no fucking sense to me otherwise.

This title is has a ton of credibility. Froch won it vs Pascal and Dirrell. He fought a war with Kessler for it. Fighters make the belt and Froch has certainly put relevance in this title and hes now fighting for it against Abraham. This is as relevant as a title can get.

Diego408 wrote:

This title is has a ton of credibility. Froch won it vs Pascal and Dirrell. He fought a war with Kessler for it. Fighters make the belt and Froch has certainly put relevance in this title and hes now fighting for it against Abraham. This is as relevant as a title can get.

Neither guy owns it its vacant and neither guy is tops in the division. This belt is for third or fourth place.

hardcoreBEE24 wrote:

Diego408 wrote:

This title is has a ton of credibility. Froch won it vs Pascal and Dirrell. He fought a war with Kessler for it. Fighters make the belt and Froch has certainly put relevance in this title and hes now fighting for it against Abraham. This is as relevant as a title can get.

Neither guy owns it its vacant and neither guy is tops in the division. This belt is for third or fourth place.

Still Abe and Froch are top fighters in a deep division, its a lot mroe meaningful than the other 90% of title matches.

I know many people here dont like the idea of multiple belts, but I personally dont have a big problem with it unlike most of you guys here. Back in the days, when it was one belt per weight class, there was a lot of ducking and the desrving guys lucked out. Yes we have more belts than we should and I would preferably like to see only 2 or 3 champs per weight class, but its okay to have multiple champs. As long as the champs are good fighters, its fine by me.

Diego408 wrote:

hardcoreBEE24 wrote:

Diego408 wrote:

This title is has a ton of credibility. Froch won it vs Pascal and Dirrell. He fought a war with Kessler for it. Fighters make the belt and Froch has certainly put relevance in this title and hes now fighting for it against Abraham. This is as relevant as a title can get.

Neither guy owns it its vacant and neither guy is tops in the division. This belt is for third or fourth place.

Still Abe and Froch are top fighters in a deep division, its a lot mroe meaningful than the other 90% of title matches.

I know many people here dont like the idea of multiple belts, but I personally dont have a big problem with it unlike most of you guys here. Back in the days, when it was one belt per weight class, there was a lot of ducking and the desrving guys lucked out. Yes we have more belts than we should and I would preferably like to see only 2 or 3 champs per weight class, but its okay to have multiple champs. As long as the champs are good fighters, its fine by me.

In order to earn or own a belt one had to be or beat the man in the division. There was no room to duck unless one left the division. Now with multiple belts one can be 1/4 the man in a division duck the other 3/4 and still call himself a champion.

hardcoreBEE24 wrote:

Diego408 wrote:

hardcoreBEE24 wrote:

Diego408 wrote:

This title is has a ton of credibility. Froch won it vs Pascal and Dirrell. He fought a war with Kessler for it. Fighters make the belt and Froch has certainly put relevance in this title and hes now fighting for it against Abraham. This is as relevant as a title can get.

Neither guy owns it its vacant and neither guy is tops in the division. This belt is for third or fourth place.

Still Abe and Froch are top fighters in a deep division, its a lot mroe meaningful than the other 90% of title matches.

I know many people here dont like the idea of multiple belts, but I personally dont have a big problem with it unlike most of you guys here. Back in the days, when it was one belt per weight class, there was a lot of ducking and the desrving guys lucked out. Yes we have more belts than we should and I would preferably like to see only 2 or 3 champs per weight class, but its okay to have multiple champs. As long as the champs are good fighters, its fine by me.

In order to earn or own a belt one had to be or beat the man in the division. There was no room to duck unless one left the division. Now with multiple belts one can be 1/4 the man in a division duck the other 3/4 and still call himself a champion.

the man of the division can duck however he wants and its happend before. Bowe, Holmes Floyd and countless other as the man of the division ducked several good oppenents. The Mob ran things back when it was one belt per division, they said who fought who. I remember Jake LaMotta having to take a dive to get a title shot. Even the Ring Belt doesnt really have any standards for the man to fight top contenders. All belts have their flaw, but the best should be able to call themself champs. How long was it till Hagler got his shot at the title?

Diego408 wrote:

hardcoreBEE24 wrote:

Diego408 wrote:

hardcoreBEE24 wrote:

Diego408 wrote:

This title is has a ton of credibility. Froch won it vs Pascal and Dirrell. He fought a war with Kessler for it. Fighters make the belt and Froch has certainly put relevance in this title and hes now fighting for it against Abraham. This is as relevant as a title can get.

Neither guy owns it its vacant and neither guy is tops in the division. This belt is for third or fourth place.

Still Abe and Froch are top fighters in a deep division, its a lot mroe meaningful than the other 90% of title matches.

I know many people here dont like the idea of multiple belts, but I personally dont have a big problem with it unlike most of you guys here. Back in the days, when it was one belt per weight class, there was a lot of ducking and the desrving guys lucked out. Yes we have more belts than we should and I would preferably like to see only 2 or 3 champs per weight class, but its okay to have multiple champs. As long as the champs are good fighters, its fine by me.

In order to earn or own a belt one had to be or beat the man in the division. There was no room to duck unless one left the division. Now with multiple belts one can be 1/4 the man in a division duck the other 3/4 and still call himself a champion.

the man of the division can duck however he wants and its happend before. Bowe, Holmes Floyd and countless other as the man of the division ducked several good oppenents. The Mob ran things back when it was one belt per division, they said who fought who. I remember Jake LaMotta having to take a dive to get a title shot. Even the Ring Belt doesnt really have any standards for the man to fight top contenders. All belts have their flaw, but the best should be able to call themself champs. How long was it till Hagler got his shot at the title?

Bowe, Holmes and Floyd haw all been prodcts of multiple belts per division. Haglet got his first shot at 24 yrs old and it was for a muiple belt Title vs. Antuofermo in 1979. You talk about the mob and Lamotta, don't you think the belt comissions extort fighters and dictate who they fight? Single belt per division is the only way for boxing to gauge a true champion.

hardcoreBEE24 wrote:

Diego408 wrote:

hardcoreBEE24 wrote:

Diego408 wrote:

hardcoreBEE24 wrote:

Diego408 wrote:

This title is has a ton of credibility. Froch won it vs Pascal and Dirrell. He fought a war with Kessler for it. Fighters make the belt and Froch has certainly put relevance in this title and hes now fighting for it against Abraham. This is as relevant as a title can get.

Neither guy owns it its vacant and neither guy is tops in the division. This belt is for third or fourth place.

Still Abe and Froch are top fighters in a deep division, its a lot mroe meaningful than the other 90% of title matches.

I know many people here dont like the idea of multiple belts, but I personally dont have a big problem with it unlike most of you guys here. Back in the days, when it was one belt per weight class, there was a lot of ducking and the desrving guys lucked out. Yes we have more belts than we should and I would preferably like to see only 2 or 3 champs per weight class, but its okay to have multiple champs. As long as the champs are good fighters, its fine by me.

In order to earn or own a belt one had to be or beat the man in the division. There was no room to duck unless one left the division. Now with multiple belts one can be 1/4 the man in a division duck the other 3/4 and still call himself a champion.

the man of the division can duck however he wants and its happend before. Bowe, Holmes Floyd and countless other as the man of the division ducked several good oppenents. The Mob ran things back when it was one belt per division, they said who fought who. I remember Jake LaMotta having to take a dive to get a title shot. Even the Ring Belt doesnt really have any standards for the man to fight top contenders. All belts have their flaw, but the best should be able to call themself champs. How long was it till Hagler got his shot at the title?

Bowe, Holmes and Floyd haw all been prodcts of multiple belts per division. Haglet got his first shot at 24 yrs old and it was for a muiple belt Title vs. Antuofermo in 1979. You talk about the mob and Lamotta, don't you think the belt comissions extort fighters and dictate who they fight? Single belt per division is the only way for boxing to gauge a true champion.

I wouldnt have a problem with a single belt per weight class, but it would have its flaw just like multiple belts per weight class. Some fighter will luck out by not getting their shot in one belt per weight class and in multiple belts per weight class, no one distiguishes themselves from the pack.

no one would have a problem with multiple belts per weight class if the best would be fighting each other, as the years pass, it seems not many top fighters like taking that risk. Fighters are the ones that created the sactioning body mess and it will continue till they get backrupt.

Diego408 wrote:

This title is has a ton of credibility. Froch won it vs Pascal and Dirrell. He fought a war with Kessler for it. Fighters make the belt and Froch has certainly put relevance in this title and hes now fighting for it against Abraham. This is as relevant as a title can get.

it has ZERO credibility. NONE. These guys are contenders fighting over jewelry.

As relevant as a title can get???????? REALLY? How about JMM at 135? Or Pongsaklek Wonjokam at 112 where the linear title goes back 35 years with the man beating the man? How about Sergio Martinez at middle where the line goes Pavlik, Taylor BHOP?

Diego408 wrote:

hardcoreBEE24 wrote:

Diego408 wrote:

This title is has a ton of credibility. Froch won it vs Pascal and Dirrell. He fought a war with Kessler for it. Fighters make the belt and Froch has certainly put relevance in this title and hes now fighting for it against Abraham. This is as relevant as a title can get.

Neither guy owns it its vacant and neither guy is tops in the division. This belt is for third or fourth place.

Still Abe and Froch are top fighters in a deep division, its a lot mroe meaningful than the other 90% of title matches.

I know many people here dont like the idea of multiple belts, but I personally dont have a big problem with it unlike most of you guys here. Back in the days, when it was one belt per weight class, there was a lot of ducking and the desrving guys lucked out. Yes we have more belts than we should and I would preferably like to see only 2 or 3 champs per weight class, but its okay to have multiple champs. As long as the champs are good fighters, its fine by me.

Then in what sense are they champions??????? Your position is like arguing divisional champs in baseball should be called World Series Champs.

Diego408 wrote:

hardcoreBEE24 wrote:

Diego408 wrote:

hardcoreBEE24 wrote:

Diego408 wrote:

hardcoreBEE24 wrote:

Diego408 wrote:

This title is has a ton of credibility. Froch won it vs Pascal and Dirrell. He fought a war with Kessler for it. Fighters make the belt and Froch has certainly put relevance in this title and hes now fighting for it against Abraham. This is as relevant as a title can get.

Neither guy owns it its vacant and neither guy is tops in the division. This belt is for third or fourth place.

Still Abe and Froch are top fighters in a deep division, its a lot mroe meaningful than the other 90% of title matches.

I know many people here dont like the idea of multiple belts, but I personally dont have a big problem with it unlike most of you guys here. Back in the days, when it was one belt per weight class, there was a lot of ducking and the desrving guys lucked out. Yes we have more belts than we should and I would preferably like to see only 2 or 3 champs per weight class, but its okay to have multiple champs. As long as the champs are good fighters, its fine by me.

In order to earn or own a belt one had to be or beat the man in the division. There was no room to duck unless one left the division. Now with multiple belts one can be 1/4 the man in a division duck the other 3/4 and still call himself a champion.

the man of the division can duck however he wants and its happend before. Bowe, Holmes Floyd and countless other as the man of the division ducked several good oppenents. The Mob ran things back when it was one belt per division, they said who fought who. I remember Jake LaMotta having to take a dive to get a title shot. Even the Ring Belt doesnt really have any standards for the man to fight top contenders. All belts have their flaw, but the best should be able to call themself champs. How long was it till Hagler got his shot at the title?

Bowe, Holmes and Floyd haw all been prodcts of multiple belts per division. Haglet got his first shot at 24 yrs old and it was for a muiple belt Title vs. Antuofermo in 1979. You talk about the mob and Lamotta, don't you think the belt comissions extort fighters and dictate who they fight? Single belt per division is the only way for boxing to gauge a true champion.

I wouldnt have a problem with a single belt per weight class, but it would have its flaw just like multiple belts per weight class. Some fighter will luck out by not getting their shot in one belt per weight class and in multiple belts per weight class, no one distiguishes themselves from the pack.

no one would have a problem with multiple belts per weight class if the best would be fighting each other, as the years pass, it seems not many top fighters like taking that risk. Fighters are the ones that created the sactioning body mess and it will continue till they get backrupt.

What I think you are missing is it is the multiple belts (and fans accepting them) that ENABLES that in the first place.

It only makes sense

WBC strap for Froch vs Abraham & WBA for Ward vs Dirrell

= Final w/Two Straps on the line