Arthur's title may come at a cost

Ever since it was announced, I have been trying to think of a reason to justify next month's Alex Arthur-Stephen Foster Jr bout for the interim WBO super-featherweight title. My original thoughts were that Foster was probably chosen as the opponent because he was cheap and a fellow Frank Warren boxerwhile an all-British angle might sell a few tickets and get some TV viewers south of the border.

But can anyone say Foster has done enough to justify his shot? He's a featherweight, was easily outpointed by Derry Mathews just over a year ago and, in his two fights since, beat Vladimir Borov and Jean Marie Codet - not only two average journeymen, but both men he had beaten before.

In such an exciting world division - with the likes of Manny Pacquiao, Juan Manuel Marquez and Joan Guzman (the full WBO champion) - it would seem there could be some exciting matches to be made. If not quite up with Hatton-Mayweather, Calzaghe-Kessler, or Haye-Mormeck, Arthur against any of the above - or Jorge Barrios, Leva Kirakosyan, Kevin Mitchell or Gairy St Clair - would be a great match. However, the opposite has happened. This weekend Guzman retained the full title by outpointing Humberto Soto. Afterwards there was talk of him facing Pacquiao, DIaz (Juan or David) or Michael Katsidis, but no Arthur.

Picking Foster as an opponent makes Arthur as unattractive as possible to Guzman's promoters. Guzman has until January 21 to defend (or more likely commit to defend) the full title against Arthur, or he will be stripped and Arthur  will be made full champion. So it seems certain that Arthur (or Foster if he wins) will almost certainly inherit the full title. I'm not anti-Foster, but would like to see him get a fight that would prove him as a contender as a super-featherweight.

Arthur beating Koba Gogoladze for the interim title should have been a stepping stone to exciting fights. But facing Foster may leave Arthur in a position where a really attractive match could be farther away than ever.