Canelo's WBC "Franchise Champion" Misinformation

20 posts / 0 new
Last post
Canelo's WBC "Franchise Champion" Misinformation

First off, I'd like to say that the WBC doing this is ridiculous and shows how little credibility they have. However, there is a lot of misinformation out there being published by people who fancy themselves to be journalists about what the decision means. Based on the information the WBC has provided, it is not like the WBA Super/Regular like some of those "journalists" have stated. The "Franchise Champion" is not an actual title. Canelo has vacated the legitimate title and Jermall Charlo is the legitimate WBC Middleweight champion. This was very likely a PR move to distract from Canelo vacating the belt because fighting Charlo as a mandatory wouldn't happen for various reasons.

Reading the ruling (

"2. This designation is not transferable and is exclusively to the fighter who receives such designation."

"7. The WBC may award a Diamond Championship belt in those fights in which the Franchise Champion engages. If the Franchise Champion loses, the winner will receive the Diamond belt and may be considered as mandatory contender of the division."

From this, we can see the "Franchise Champion" status cannot be transferred, i.e. it is not an alphabet title. This why they are saying they may put up the "Diamond belt" (whatever that means) and if the "Franchise Champion" loses, the winner becomes the mandatory to the WBC title, because the "Franchise Champion" isn't an actual alphabet title. Jermall Charlo is now the legitimate WBC Middleweight champion which Canelo vacated.

Re: Canelo's WBC "Franchise" Champion Misinformation

Post for visibility

Re: Canelo's WBC "Franchise Champion" Misinformation

To quote the world renowned poet P Diddy, “It’s all about the Benjamins baby”

Re: Canelo's WBC "Franchise Champion" Misinformation

Exactly, the WBC was on the outside of the Canelo business for a while and they saw how bad it was. They aren't going to lose out again.

Re: Canelo's WBC "Franchise Champion" Misinformation

For a start, one thing I've had enough of is people deliberately misleading people, Mike Coppinger recently told everyone Garcia vs Garcia was almost a done deal, Mikey said later he hadn't even discussed a fight with Danny. People often say things that aren't true, people will make it out to be something it isn't and tell half the story.

That explains it, because it makes no sense for the WBC to make a belt like that, give Canelo the illegitimate belt, if Canelo vacated, that explains it. That makes sense, I remeber when he vacated this very belt after he beat Cotto, and that badly damaged his reputation, he became the guy who ducked Golovkin, so I can see why his reputation would be protected.

I bet Charlo can't believe his luck, titles can be vacant, and it seems to be happening more and more in boxing (titles being vacated and given to interim champions rather than having to be outright won), but Canelo vacating just that title was unexpected (not saying it's a huge shock, but relatively unexpected), and he is now the champion, and Brandon Adams, he had a great opportunity before, but now, it's the opportunity of a lifetime for him. The timing does seem strange, if the WBC are going to promote Charlo to being the champion, you'd think they wouldn't do it 3 days before his fight, and they would do it just after he's won, not that it matters, because he's got at least 3 wins which are undoubtedly better than a win over Adams.

Re: Canelo's WBC "Franchise Champion" Misinformation

I would trust Coppinger on this case to be honest. It isn't that Mikey is lying to lie or to undermine Coppinger, but sometimes when things are in negotiation they can be jeopardized by there being too much released to the public. Coppinger has been reliable in breaking news because he has a lot of inside sources, but he isn't a boxing analyst. I was more speaking about people like Michael Benson who do very little if any actual journalism, instead just reposting what others have worked hard on. He claimed this was like the WBA Super/Regular situation when it isn't. It would be nice though if someone like Coppinger would state Charlo is the legitimate champion and the "Franchise Champion" is just a made up honorific title.

Yeah, and especially because stripping Canelo took the WBC out of the Canelo business which makes a lot of money in sanctioning fees. The WBC wants to stay in the Canelo business which they made clear with some of the rules for the "Franchise Champion".

I assume this or forcing the Canelo fight was the eventual plan by PBC and Charlo. He has been the mandatory for over a year so eventually it was going to be called on Canelo, especially considering Haymon's relationship with the WBC. I think the WBC found out from Canelo he had no intentions of defending the WBC title against Charlo anytime soon for a variety of reasons and PBC would be happy with Charlo vs. Adams being for a title, so it works out great for them. I'm not against promoting people to full champions when a lot of vacant title fights are mismatches anyways. Promotions have happened more frequently in recent times but they go back quite a way. Holmes and Lewis were both promoted to full WBC champion after being denied a fight versus the champion as the mandatory.

Re: Canelo's WBC "Franchise Champion" Misinformation

Mikey said he hadn't discussed anything, I don't like Coppinger, but I don't know, mistakes happen.

Yeah, Bowe's reputation will always be less than what it could have been had he fought Lewis, but if you don't believe you can win, you don't believe you can win.

Re: Canelo's WBC "Franchise Champion" Misinformation

that's ridiculous

Re: Canelo's WBC "Franchise Champion" Misinformation

Now it’s looking as if the IBF is heading toward a stripping of the title from Canelo, and potentially setting up a vacant shot between Derevyanchenko and GGG, as the Canelo camp has indicated they won’t fight their IBF mandatory next. Only potential save is the unification with Andrade, which also seems less than likely at this point, as now Andrade is back at it toward BJS, and Canelo has sights on Kovalev. This would be one way for GGG to get the title that the GB team says he’s needs for the 3rd fight. Thoughts?

Re: Canelo's WBC "Franchise Champion" Misinformation

The Kovalev fight might be an option for the future, he will only decline from here, Kovalev, and with the weight, Canelo would still get immense credit, it is a high risk fight that, and Canelo holds all the cards at 160, is the biggest draw in boxing, he doesn't need crazy fights like that. I think Andrade just hates because Saunders is a big mouth who talks shit, and also ruined their fight with the failed test, that fight isn't in negotiations, Saunders doesn't seem to want that fight, I think Andrade would take the Canelo fight, it is more a question of whether Canelo wants to take that high risk fight that would be low reward, but the WBO belt makes it more interesting, because that gives Canelo a reason to fight him. I personally would most like to Canelo vs Andrade.

Re: Canelo's WBC "Franchise Champion" Misinformation

Golovkin vs. Derevyanchenko is a good fight, obviously, I would prefer Canelo vs. Golovkin III but that and Canelo vs. Kovalev aren't bad options. I don't think Golovkin having a belt really matters, Canelo is above the belts as a draw. I'm disappointed there aren't talks of Golovkin vs. Saunders, but I understand that there are significant roadblocks to it. I'm not interested in Canelo vs. Andrade, it's not for the undisputed title so there's little incentive for it given how boring Andrade is. As long as its not Canelo vs. Munguia or Golovkin vs. Munguia.

Re: Canelo's WBC "Franchise Champion" Misinformation

I agree with most of what you have said there, but as a 50/50 fight, as a contest, I think Golovkin vs Derevyanchenko is better than the trilogy, but obviously not as an event, because of the publicity and everything else. If you're Golovkin, do you want Saunders? He's got no belt, he isn't the biggest name in boxing, he is awkward, great skills, could set Golovkin back a lot of he beat him which he possibly could, I don't think Golovkin's team will tell him to take that fight, and how do we even know Saunders will come back down? I know he went to Kazakhstan the other day and mentioned Golovkin, but he has also been calling out Smith, has a belt at 168, the Eubank rematch is out there, and those are fights that might be easier to make than Canelo and Golovkin.

I certainly don't agree with that, Andrade is an unbeaten world champion who just shut out a good fighter in Sulecki, I can never really go along with the whole 'boring, vanilla' stuff, it's just a negative boxing style, but whether a fighter is boring in easy fights or not, they can't be boring in 50/50 fights, and Andrade would be 100% tested against Canelo, couldn't be one paced in that fight. There are some but not many fights I would rather see than Canelo vs Andrade, I think Andrade is top 2, I don't think he is as good as a sub 2018 Golovkin, but there is not much in it in my opinion, but I don't think he beats Canelo, and if I'm right which I might not be, then that doesn't make the fight more logical for Canelo.

Re: Canelo's WBC "Franchise Champion" Misinformation

Potentially it may be more competitive if Golovkin has been declining significantly since the Canelo rematch, but we know Golovkin was extremely competitive in a loss versus Canelo and Canelo is a way bigger fight. It makes sense why DAZN wants Canelo vs. Golovkin. Saunders is the WBO Super Middleweight titlist, in a world without network conflicts, why not fight for Saunders title? I don't think the IBF Middleweight is as interesting to Canelo as the WBO Super Middleweight because the WBO Super Middleweight would give Canelo a title in another weight class. The Smith and Eubank fights are seemingly unrealistic for similar reasons to the Golovkin fight, because of network conflicts.

As I said before the fight, Sulecki wasn't the right stylistic fighter to beat Andrade, someone who can put pressure on him is. Negative is boring, and it was not a 50/50 fight, Andrade was a near 6 to 1 betting favorite. It is only entertaining when someone does it at the absolute highest level and negates a great fighter e.g. what Hopkins did late in his career. Andrade is not a good offensive fighter and his chin is very questionable. Versus Sulecki Andrade landed 133 punches, well under the Middleweight average while winning nearly every round. Andrade also has no killer instict, he should have zero knockouts in his last five fights despite fighting overmatched opponents, he is more than content to point fight and cruise the distance which is boring because he isn't a great fighter, he doesn't have eye test or resume. That isn't to say he is a bum, I would say he is a slight underdog versus someone like Jermall Charlo, but Golovkin and Canelo are a bridge too far for him. When someone at an elite level doesn't respect his offense, he'll either get on his bike or get broken down. Unless Canelo's knee is that much of an issue to his movement Canelo shouldn't worry about Andrade, but Andrade isn't a fight he should or seemingly will take in September anyways. I just hope whatever direction Canelo and Golovkin go, it won't be versus Munguia.

Re: Canelo's WBC "Franchise Champion" Misinformation

He will have been, slowly but surely, that's biology, it's inevitable, but that isn't to say he is declining fast, and he is declining from such a high level, is still good enough to beat any fighter who isn't top 20 in my opinion, and there is no doubt that based on the rematch, the trilogy would be a bigger event. Because he is high risk, and not the highest reward, does Golovkin want to go to 168? People assume he is bigger than he is, he is not a small middleweight, but he is not a big Middleweight. Golovkin vs Saunders is not a bad match up, but I don't think it will happen. They are still fights that can happen, if the teams can work together, the Saunders vs Eubnak rematch would sell, I guarantee.

I know, but I still believe you can only put so much down to styles when one fighter proves to be so much better than his opponent, and more importantly, he shut the guy out, and Sulecki beat Culcay, Rosado, gave Jacobs problems, he is a good fighter.

I'm still in disagreement about that, 100%, this is what people have been saying about Ward, Mayweather, Rigondeaux, Klitschko for years, 'boring', their job is to get in the ring and fight, if they don't need to fight a fight you find entertaining, why would they do anything other then just win? If the opponent can't drag them into a tear up, that is not their problem. The best chin is the one that doesn't get hit, guard up, chin down, protect yourself at all times, you should never give your opponent a free shot, if you can win fights without going to war, that's not a bad thing. Negative is not necessarily boring. Well again, not Andrade's problem, more impressive to outland Sulecki 20-0 than 300-250, however little he was landing, Sulecki was landing less, in almost every, if not every round. Well given what Akavov did against Saunders, Kautondokwa and Fox being unbeaten fighters, can't complain much about his opposition, and Culcay is very underrated, also, the KO is not important when it comes to getting the result, the objective is to win, Andrade has been doing that, winning easily, not good to watch, but first and foremost, before it is a business, before it is entertainment, it is a sport with rules and objectives. You sound like Carl Froch when he talks about Andre Ward. Andrade has beat Martirosyan, Culcay, Sulecki, not a bad resume, and 'eye test' isn't a term I like because as I think you are doing now, you are combining entertainment with whether or not a fighter is successful, too much. It doesn't get more one sided than a shutout, Andrade is a dominant fighter.

Andrade's chin is very questionable, but I don't he agree he isn't a good offensive fighter, if you watch his fight against Nelson, or just the highlights, you'll see why I think that, but I agree, against Canelo, he would be found wanting slightly for offensive skill, but his variety is good, and if you can find your opponent, your opponent can't hit you clean, you don't have to be a phenomenal offensive fighter to do well at world level.

So you think Charlo and GGG beat Andrade? I disagree, I don't think Andrade beats Canelo, but I think he would beat GGG, I think Charlo is definitely the weak link, I mean, who's better out of Adams and Sulecki? Not saying that necessarily means Andrade is better, that isn't the only reason I think he's better, but I think Culcay would beat Adams, so Sulecki definitely would.

Re: Canelo's WBC "Franchise Champion" Misinformation

It is inevitable, but the question is if Golovkin has declined enough that Derevyanchenko is a more competitive fight than Canelo, and I haven't seen enough for me to say that. That is the thing about fighting Saunders at 168, Saunders is not a natural Super Middleweight either. I don't believe Golovkin wants to go up in weight either, I think he has become a businessman first and a competitor second which is disappointing.

The problem comes in where Andrade's issues, his weak offense and his chin, aren't things that Sulecki can push him. Someone like Derevyanchenko, who is probably not significantly better than Sulecki but is different stylistically, would give him much more trouble. Watch Andrade vs. Martirosyan if you don't believe me. If Sulecki was a top pound for pound fighter he could overcome the stylistic matchup, but that isn't what Sulecki is.

The problem is that when Ward, Mayweather, Rigodeaux, and Klitschko is that they were great fighters, and even with that, when they fought lower level opposition, it was extremely boring. When Ward fought Rodriguez, Smith, and Green, that was boring. When Mayweather fought Berto and Guerrero, that was boring. When Rigodeaux fought Agbeko and Francisco, that was boring. When Klitschko fought Ibrighamov and Rahman, that was boring. Those were all established guys, Andrade is not, and even Ward and especially Rigondeaux had issues getting matchups because of their styles. Andrade should try to step it up and stop guys like Sulecki to make a statement, but he doesn't. If guys fight boring fights like Andrade and ask why they don't get opportunities, they can only point the finger at themselves, safety first does not sell. He should take more chances to try to stop his opponent when he is ahead. Akavov did well versus Saunders because Saunders came in trash shape. Kautondokwa and Fox were bums, and that isn't an exaggeration. His opposition has been very poor at Middleweight. Culcay is the second best fighter Andrade has beat and he's 31 years old, what does that say about how his career has gone so far? Andrade is not Ward, not even close. Ward was a complete fighter, Andrade is not, that is why it is incredibly frustrating to watch him go twelve with low level opponents and call out elite fighters. He should be stopping guys like Kautondokwa and Fox.

If you have to talk about Andrade fighting Nelson as an isolated example, that proves my point. Watch his fights versus Kautondokwa and Fox to watch him coast versus low-level opposition. The idea Andrade is an elite fighter because of his shutouts is a mirage being protected by low-level opposition.

Yes, because Andrade's chin is bad and his offense isn't good enough to make up for it. Adams is not a good fighter but Charlo actually has a body of work you can look at. He beat Trout who was slick and can take a punch. He stopped Williams. While he has had issues with slick fighters he only has to land a good series of punches on Andrade, same with Golovkin, and they are both good enough to set it up.

Re: Canelo's WBC "Franchise Champion" Misinformation

I don't know if he is much of a businessman himself, but he is as good as because he does what his team tell him to do. Is Saunders vs Golovkin really anything special? Because I would rather see Andrade vs Golovkin, certainly one is not objectively a better fight than the other. Golovkin has 5 fights left in the deal, we will see him in another big fight, maybe this year. If they could make it an eliminator, and Jacobs decides to keep going, then how about Golovkin vs Jacobs II for a fight? There are a lot of good options.I don't know if he is much of a businessman himself, but he is as good as because he does what his team tell him to do. Is Saunders vs Golovkin really anything special? Because I would rather see Andrade vs Golovkin, certainly one is not objectively a better fight than the other. Golovkin has 5 fights left in the deal, we will see him in another big fight, maybe this year. If they could make it an eliminator, and Jacobs decides to keep going, then how about Golovkin vs Jacobs II for a fight? There are a lot of good options.

I don't think he has weak offense, he can punch, I don't believe you expected him to put Sulecki down in round 1, he can punch, and he has good variety, he often establishes his ability to hurt his opponent, early, the fact that after explosive starts, he couldn't finish Kautondokwa or Sukecki doesn't say a lot for his finishing, and he did himself no favours coasting, but Andrade has proven to have good variety, he has very good skills, works the body and head, and he has power, so I don't agree, all in all, that he isn't a good offensive fighter even compared to Canelo. Derevyanchenko is significantly better than Sukecki in my opinion, he would push Andrade harder, but Andrade wasn't pushed to the limit against Sukecki, we have never seen him pushed to the limit, so we don't know if a more aggressive and challenging opponent like Derevyanchenko would have brought more aggression out of Andrade, I think you are making a lot of assumptions which you are stating with too much confidence, there are more questions than answers when it comes to fights that haven't happened. How many rounds did you expect Sukecki to win against Andrade?

Those fights being boring was the consensus, I agree, and when it comes to the business aspect, it was bad for Rigondeaux, Klitschko, Ward, but Mayweather's unpopularity was good for him in terms of business, people bought tickets and PPV to see him lose, and he was in bigger fights than the other 3, not saying those are the only 2 reasons he's the wealthiest.

Those fights may have been boring to some people, how many people paid to watch Mayweather vs Guerrero and still paid to watch the next one despite the boring fight? I bet almost all the paying fans, and even aside from what harm these so called boring fights do or don't do to fighters, those fights were impressive, a fight can be so boring you stop watching and go to sleep, and you still can't rank the fighter lower and say others beat him, because being boring is not a weakness, doesn't make you a bad boxer, let's get that right, that might be the key to this discussion.

Maybe he should, maybe trainer doesn't agree with you, tells him not to take risks, take or leave a stoppage, not getting the stoppages, is bad for his reputation, lowers his stock, never denied that, and I suppose I can see why you aren't keen to see him in big fights, but you can surely understand why I disagree, because I want to see the best fight the best, you understand that, but maybe we disagree because we disagree on Andrade being better or worse than Golovkin and Charlo. Here is a question for you, if Andrade best GGG, in what is a candidate for the worst fight in the history of the sport, but Andrade beat him by a clear UD, would you want to see Canelo vs Andrade? Is this more about you thinking Andrade is boring and you don't want to see him fight? Or because you believe due to weaknesses (some of which you think are an explanation for his lackluster performances) mean he isn't as good as Golovkin, Charlo, and wouldn't challenge Canelo as much as them? If the latter, I respect that.

You can't state that, and dismiss the possibility that Akavov was underrated, he might have done the best out of any of Andrade's opponents since Culcay. Saunders had an off night against Akavov, he was weight drained, looked like he had tried to complete a 10 week camp in 2 weeks and killed his body, but Akavov pushed him close, you still have to give him credit.

I believe Andrade is a complete fighter, I don't think he's a spectacular fighter, not as good as Ward, but I think it is close.

That example was about his variety, in response to you saying he is not a good offensive fighter. I've seen them, no need to watch them again, they were lacklustre, one paced, nothing spectacular from Andrade, hard to take anything from Fox-Akavov, but shutting out Sulecki was very impressive, because he did anything different from previous fights? No, because he did the same thing, was as dominant, against a big step up in opposition.

Agree to disagree, his chin might not be as bad as you make out, he wasn't badly hurt either time he has been down if I remember right, he wasn't even legitimately dropped against Fox. You could just as easily talk about his inability to really get to and punish Adams, there are strengths and weaknesses for Charlo and Andrade, but more from Charlo, and he hasn't improved in the last 2 years in my opinion. I'm 70% sure Andrade beats Charlo, he is the better boxer, better skills, no comparison for defence, Charlo would be frustrated, out boxed. If Andrade had done that, you would be talking about his he lost 4-5 rounds, Andrade is the more dominant fighter, his opposition, overall, hasn't been as good, but Porter's opposition has been better than Crawford's, resume isn't everything, and more importantly, Sukecki vs Adams would be a fight with a heavy favourite, we would both like pick Sukecki, wide, and Andrade beat Sukecki every bit as well as Charlo. I don't think they would set up a knockout, they would be aggressive, give Andrade problems, and I think Andrade would only just edge past GGG, GGG would give him all he could handle, but I think he has the skills not to get set up and knocked out, and more importantly, the skills to land more clean punches and avoid getting hit himself.

I hope there is no bias from you because Andrade is a Matchroom USA fighter, if there is, I had the decency to admit when I was biased the other day on the Russell Jr subject, if you say you are not biased, I believe you, but it is easily done when you have the dislike that you have for Matchroom.

Re: Canelo's WBC "Franchise Champion" Misinformation

"I don't think he's a spectacular fighter, not as good as Ward, but I think it is close."

Andre Ward is a first-ballot Hall of Fame lock and all-time great. We could not be farther apart on this discussion, so I am not going to continue it. Hope you enjoy this weekend of fights, it is stacked. Are fights like Brant vs. Murata II and Vargas vs. Kameda available for you?

Re: Canelo's WBC "Franchise Champion" Misinformation

You too, it is a good one, next week is even better. No, I'll just have to catch up, none of the fights are on British TV apart from the ShoBox tomorrow and Dubois vs Gorman, and I am not paying the ridiculous price for a year's subscription, so I will watch it, but not live, still looking forward to it, a real pick'em, I keep changing my mind. Do you have access to all the fights?

Re: Canelo's WBC "Franchise Champion" Misinformation

Yeah, I believe so. I hope with Brant vs. Murata II on ESPN+ they show the full main card rather than just the main event, I would like to see the Shiro and Shimizu fights. It will be on very early here though, 7 A.M. if I remember correctly. When Ioka vs. Palicte was on UFC Fight Pass they didn't show the Kyoguchi fight. The Dubois vs. Gorman card is luckily on ESPN+ as a part of Warren's deal with ESPN. What is the cost of the Pacquiao vs. Thurman PPV in the UK? Did iTV pick up the lead-in card with Plant vs. Lee as well?

Re: Canelo's WBC "Franchise Champion" Misinformation

I don't know, Garcia vs Spence was on ITV, and that was free, so I don't know. I think most of the undercard will be on ITV, maybe not Ajagba, but the top 5.