I have to admit if I were to choose in which belts champion i would like to be i would choose WBC it looks great and has great history! But really the most prestigous must be WBA as it is the oldest! Also I would like to add that Todays WBC belt looks much better then the old one that Norton, Holmes had!
Agreed. There is no reason why this particular alphabet belt should be considered better than any other. They all are equally illegitimate.
My theory is that WBA and WBC were equally prestigious because of their history. The IBF was trailing and the WBO just fairly recently (in boxing terms) gained legitimacy. Then the WBA started it's super champion bs and the WBC has been the most prestigious ever since. Just a theory....
But a sound one, for the most part. While Trans-National (and Ring, to some extent) champions are still the ones I recognize, the fact is that the WBC has managed to avoid cluttering the division with champions in the same manner that its original counterpart has done. As a result, it's a (little) more respected than the WBA. The IBF arguably has as much prestige as the WBA at this point, too...It's main stumbling block is its tendency to immediately strip champions who attempt unification, or to not sanction those bouts. Either way, they all still kinda suck. :deal
