IBF, WBA, WBC or WBO

Same here, not because Adamek's the IBF holder, but they don't make interim shitty belts, and it's cleared up who's the champ there.

The Ring, that belt is given by editors of 'The Bible of Boxing', so people who really know a lot about boxing, they don't give it for free, you have to prove you really are the best and beat the best guys in certain divison. These editors are experts, they know who really deserves it.

 

Historically of all the belts the WBA has the most significance. The WBA these days are so farcical its not funny.

The WBC are next but Suliaman is an ego maniac and there Champion Emeritus and Diamond champship is just as bad as the "Super" champions the WBA introduced 8 years ago.

The IBF created in the early 80's as a splinter off the WBA and although there early champs were credible (the IBF simply handed the belt to the best men in the divisions at the time Holmes and Hagler being two notable names) were mired in corruption. They were investigated by the FBI along with DKP who also had a stranglehold on the WBA.

As for the WBO there just garbage. There first heavyweight inaugural champ in 89 was some Italian heavy called Frenceso Damiani. They were also if i remember correctly a fork off the WBA. There champions by and large have been a joke. There mandatories are even worse. And theres is a belt that simply isnt viewed with alot of credibility as the big 3. There the only organisation iv ever heard of that had a dead man in their rankings.

 

Those divisions were introduced for the safety of the fighters.

 

It's funny to think how in 1996, HBO didn't even want to talk about the WBO as a "real recognized title" and now in 2009, we mention them with the big 3 without thinking. Did all the title belts grow this fast?

 

I have more respect for the WBA because of Stoney

This content is protected

 

you're in the bag!



Now i know!

 

the ring belt is the only one that really counts....I would like to see the IBO become more legit, because it seems to have the least corruption...then the IBF is a distant 3rd.......wba is ****, wbo is ****, and wbc is the most corrupt IMO

 

Boxing of course does not need 4 weight classes from 112 to 122. However the boxing organisations are mostly controlled by latino interests and this was a way of letting Mexico etc. fight for more belts (because these are the weight classes that only latinos and asians really have critical mass in).

For the sport it sucks, but for latinos it may be a good thing.

 

IBF has been a joke the whole time and Bob Lee was as corrupt as anyone.

 

I couldn't agree more. The WBO was created to "give people who wouldn't normally become world champions an opportunity to do so." That says it all.

 

They're all basically the same, very corrupt, all 4 organizations hand out belts to unworthy boxers. I would say the IBF and WBC are the worst because there mandatory rules are strict and so meaningless.

 

the lower weights have way too many divisions. if a guy is 2 pounds heavier than you it wouldn't be difficult to put that weight on in muscle if you really felt you were at such a disadvantage. its a joke

 

Which organization was the first to exist ? Wasn't it the WBA ?

 

If Wikipedia is to believed then yes it's the WBA then the WBC then etc etc