IBF VS WBC which is better?.

The one that didn't invent Bridgerweight, didn't shamelessly do Don King's bidding, isn't run by Sulaiman's crotch spawn and doesn't have even more variations of its belt than the WBA. All alphabet groups suck in the end, though.

 

Every boxing organization has had a history riddled with corruption and delusions of self-importance fueling "mandatories" designed to spoil unification bouts.... it's just a question of degrees as to which is worst... but, yeah, the Sulamains are perfect examples.

 

Wbc

 

Neither or NONE is the answer. As Crawford said, boxing is the only sport where players (fighters) need to PAY to be champion. Doesnt sound like a huge deal till you consider the fact that fighters need to ENDORSE belt orgs...should be other way around...especially how crooked these guys are.

With the franchise champs, interim champs, champs in recess, super champ, regular champ...boxing has turned into TEE BALL...where EVERYONE GETS A TROPHY.

NONE IS THE ANSWER.

 

IBF by far.

 

None.

 

The IBF is much better.

The WBA and WBC are terribly corrupt. The WBO does whatever Frank "Fish Eyes" Warren and Bob Arum want.

 

We Be Crooked just put a guy with a 0-1 record in their HW top 10.

There's your answer there.

 

Theyre all horrible, those saying the IBF is any better need to watch the documentary on the FBI sting operation in boxing.
The whole system is laughable

 

One has Naganou and Wilder (WBC) and other has legit contenders (IBF) nuff said.

 

IBF by miles off course. None federation are perfect but they at last trying act like sport is important here.
For example Hw division.
IBF pretendent fighting for the belts regulary.
If some fighter refuse to fight in their eliminator they just throw him down in rankings. They even strip Fury from his IBF belt when he dont want/cant defend title with Glazkov.
WBC? They let Wilder avoid official pretendents (Whyte and Povetkin) for almost 5 years and dont had problem with his pathetic defence. They do same with Fury. They also give Vitali too many time.

WBC is tragedy.

 

If you believe fighters should win titles in the ring, then it isn't the IBF.

In fact, they believe the opposite. Even if you win a title in the ring, they think nothing of snatching it from you before your bruises from the fight even heal.

• The IBF stripped Fury 10 days after beating Wlad because Fury wouldn't fight Czar Glazkov next. Glazkov lost the vacant title fight.
• The IBF stripped Golovkin because he wouldn't fight Derevyanchenko next. Derevyanchenko lost the vacant title fight.
• The IBF stripped Canelo because he wouldn't fight Derevyanchenko next. Derevyanchenko lost that vacant title fight, too.
• The IBF stripped the winner of the Crawford-Spence Welterweight unification earlier this year just weeks after Crawford won the title.

And the IBF is actively preparing to strip the winner of Fury-Usyk heavyweight title unification days after their fight ....

And have already said they plan to proclaim the winner of Hrgovic vs FILL IN THE BLANK their new champ.

The IBF have stripped more future Hall of Famers (Fury, Canelo, Golovkin, Crawford and the winner of the upcoming Fury-Usyk unification) in the last few years than anyone in memory.

Yet, comically, in one instance after the other, the person they wanted to award the belt to failed to even win the vacant version.

They're consistently stripping all-time greats in favor of scrubs who can't even pick up the vacant strap.

Which just shows how inept the IBF is at rating fighters overall.

You should at least be good at that (rating boxers) if you're going to rip belts from great fighters who won their titles in battle ... and favor of fighters who haven't won anything.

 

They're both crooks.