Which alphabet organisation do you take THE MOST serious?

It's possible you think 2 organisations are equally the most reliable, or less worse than the others.

 

I always thought "the most" implied one.

 

tied at #1 then

 

It's hard to take any of the ABC organizations seriously.

 

wba has done itself in.


wba and ibf i guess are the ones you want to win but wbo and ibo are gettign more credence ever fight

 

WBC for me..

 

Wbo

 

its funny but the fringe IBO is the most fairest and the champions who hold this title seem to have no problems with it.hatton and klithko and danny green swear by it.

 

IBO , they want top fights , for instance , they noticed that the Hatton vs Manny fight was to be made for the ring title and added their belt in . No fees , but good structure and the top fighters.

I know they have a few weights which they are struggling with , but in time they will become the number 1.

Biggest frauds are the WBA , how can you have an interim champion when the proper champion is active?????

 

In moderon boxing if you win one of the WBC, WBA, IBF and WBO you can call yourself a world champion.

The WBA which is the original killed itself with the super champ ruling - its embarrassing.

The WBC's emiritus, diamond and silver titles are confusing as well, wtf?

IBF seem to be going down a decent route, but have a history of corruption and are too strict on their champion, meaning we get stripped titles all the time which is no good for anybody.

WBO has legitamized itself very well, with most high profile boxers fighting for now, but their rqnkings area bit weak and not always enforced. Meaning soft title defences are likely, but this does mean champioon are less likely to be stripped.

I think the IBF and the WBO nearly have it right.

Still if I could choose which belt to win in a fight, itd still probably be the WBC.

 

The IBF and WBC. The WBA with all the super duper champ stuff gets to me sometimes. IBO is gaining respect with me as well.

 

IBF seem to screw up the least, although I don't like them stripping champs (Alexander recently) when they say they support unifications.

WBC have gone down hill recently with silver belts etc.

WBO seem to have less pull than the other 3 and the interim titles tarnish it.

WBA seem to screw up the most with super champs and interim. I don't treat interim or regular champs even as ABC titlists.

IBO as a minor belt are pretty decent but doesn't have the prestige that the others do to get the top fighters fighting for their belt.

The Ring belt is still my favourite as you have to beat the best to win the belt and there are no pointless strippings but it's not perfect as you can then theoretically take easy defences. The Ring champions are all the best in their division in my opinion Wlad, Pascal, Martinez, Marquez, Wonjongkam & Segura.

 

**** all of the belts.

I think it's now gotten to the point where people just want to see the best fight the best. Not belt holders fight belt holders.

If you can unify, then great. But this rarely happens.

 

As a chaperone of the Have a Herbzg for Christmas Foundation and a convert to the European ways there can only be one answer for me.

EBU Title.

 

None of them, and neither shoud anyone else. They are ALL corrupt, they ALL have **** rankings, all strip champs for superficial reasons...do I need to go on?

Champions in boxing just don't mean what it used to for those reasons.