F*** The WBA, and their sister the WBC

Well for one I could say that the rankings are corrupt. Not any more corrupt than anyone elses rankings but still corrupt.

Unless I'm mistaken, Lockett wasn't IN the rankings until he wound up as the mandatory. In fact Lockett never even had an eliminator to get to that point. FURTHERMORE his last fight was against a 13-13-2 opponent. The reason The Pocket Rocket got his shot was because ultimately he was trained by Enzo and HBO and Arum greased some wheels in an attempt to play for a Calzaghe-Pavlik fight.

 

The IBF is the only organization that requires eliminators. The WBO, WBA, and WBC all "appoint" the #1 challenger. The IBF requires an eliminator for #1 and #2 positions.........

 

dude i dont fink u know what your talking bout they do care about the ring title infact they dont give a **** about the abc titles recall jmm vs diaz they only cared about the ring title also there was a thread not so long ago about the wbc president saying he wanted to sue hbo and gbp since they just push the ring title something like that

 

Rankings are actually a good debate. Alot of people say that the Ring rankings are the best. And that may be so, because since Ring does not require the champion to defend against a top contender, there is no expectation that the champ vs the #1 guy will get made.

Here's an example. Why does the WBO bother ranking Bernard Hopkins at #1? Sure, Hops might deserve a #1 ranking, but does anyone actually think for 1 second that Hops is going to fight Zsolt Erdei under ANY circumstances short of getting $5 million?? Why even rank Hops when you know the fight isnt happening?

Ring on the other hand can treat thair rankings like a top 10 list, because they have NO requirements on the champ actually fighting anyone.....

 

man, you're ignorant.

If they cared, they would show today's fight!! For chrissakes!

 

IBO solves all this bull****, its that simple, its just needs to be more legit...

 

Fair play to that. However again, I don't remember Lockett being in the rankings at all. Likewise on Jennings. The problem with this is that unless we can go back and actually LOOK at the rankings, we don't know either way.

 

of course there are NO requirements, they aren't getting a slice of the fighter's purse!! How the hell would they enforce it?

You have an agenda. You are a promoter living off the last days of Nate's career, you are not forward thinking, do not care about the future of the sport. That's all fine and well. You have a living to make. Most of us who are disgusted by the sanctioning bodies don't have a day to day financial interest in the sport but are interested in the sport's future growth and success. Growth and success and the ABC's are polar opposites.

 

You are absolutely right in assuming I have an agenda. And that agenda is to make sure that every fighter has a fair shot at fighting for a title, as long as he wins the fights to put him in that position.

My problem with Ring is that the rankings are NOT a path to the title. It is totally up to the promoter of the fighter who has the title, as to what defenses are made. You cannot be stripped for refusing to fight your mandatory, because you have no mandatory.

Do you know that since GBP signed Casamayor, EVERY SINGLE fight involving the Ring 135 title has been between 2 GBP fighters? And I'm not just blasting GBP here. The whole concept of having a promoter or fighter decide who is worthy of a title shot is insane.