A brief history of the ABC era (boxing's sanctioning organizations)

I see a lot of confusion about these on a pretty regular basis, so here we go. A nice easy on the eyes timeline of the important sanctioning bodies, and their interrelations.

• 1891 -
  This content is protected
  formed (UK). HQ: London †
• 1910 -
  This content is protected
  formed (European Union and "External European" areas). HQ: Rome
• 1910 -
  This content is protected
  formed (continental South America only). HQ: Buenos Aires
• 1913 -
  This content is protected
  formed. HQ: Paris †
  
• 1915 -
  This content is protected
  formed (Au). HQ: Melbourne †
  
• 1920 -
  This content is protected
  formed* (Ar). HQ: Buenos Aires.
  
• 1920 -
  This content is protected
  formed. HQ: New York City. †/♠
  
• 1921 -
  This content is protected
  formed. HQ: Providence †
  
• 1929 -
  This content is protected
  formed (UK). HQ: Cardiff
• 1946 -
  This content is protected
  formed (amateurs/semi-pros only, ie WSB). HQ: Lausanne, SUI ♠
  
• 1951 -
  This content is protected
  formed (Philippines only). HQ: Makati
  
• 1952 -
  This content is protected
  formed (mainland & archipelagic Asia/Ocenia). HQ: Bunkyō
  
• 1954 -
  This content is protected
  formed (erstwhile territories of British Empire). HQ: Westminster
  
• 1962 -
  This content is protected
  formed. HQ: Panama City
• 1963 -
  This content is protected
  formed. HQ: México City
• 1965 -
  This content is protected
  formed****. HQ: Melbourne
  
• 1966 -
  This content is protected
  formed. HQ: Auckland
• 1969 -
  This content is protected
  formed (USA/Canada/Mexico). HQ: Longmont, CO
• 1973 -
  This content is protected
  formed (continental Africa only). HQ: Kampala
  
• 1977 -
  This content is protected
  formed♦♦ (USA only). HQ: Springfield, NJ
  
• 1980 -
  This content is protected
  formed (ROI only). HQ: Dublin
  
• 1983 -
  This content is protected
  formed. HQ: Springfield, NJ
  
• 1984 -
  This content is protected
  formed. HQ: Tampa, FL
  
• 1985 -
  This content is protected
  formed (Greater Asia). HQ: Bangkok †
• 1986 -
  This content is protected
  formed (contiguous states + Hawaii & Alaska, federal districts ie Washington, D.C., unincorporated territories ie Puerto Rico, all Native American tribal commissions, and some Canadian territorial commissions). HQ: Orlando, FL ♠
  
• 1988 -
  This content is protected
  formed. HQ: Beernem
  
• 1988 -
  This content is protected
  formed. HQ: San Juan, PR
• 1989 -
  This content is protected
  formed. HQ: Miami, FL
• 1990 -
  This content is protected
  formed. HQ: Montecito
  
• 1992 -
  This content is protected
  formed. HQ: Huntington, NY
  
• 1993 -
  This content is protected
  formed. HQ: Coral Gables, FL
  
• 1993 -
  This content is protected
  formed (formed Soviet bloc territories in Eastern Europe and Central Asia). HQ: Noginsk †
  
• 1994 -
  This content is protected
  formed (USA/Canada/Mexico). HQ: San Juan, PR
• 1995 -
  This content is protected
  formed. HQ: Atlanta, GA
• 1995 -
  This content is protected
  This content is protected
  This content is protected
  This content is protected
  formed*** (Asia Major & Minor/Oceania). HQ: Seoul.
  
• 1996 -
  This content is protected
  formed. HQ: Ventnor City, NJ
  
• 1997 -
  This content is protected
  formed. HQ: Henderson, NV
  
• 1997 -
  This content is protected
  formed (USA/Canada; ostensibly Mexico). HQ: Toronto
• 1998 -
  This content is protected
  This content is protected
  This content is protected
  This content is protected
  formed♦ (originally continental Europe and Northern Africa; by 2001 just the former). HQ: Álava †
  
• 1998 -
  This content is protected
  formed. HQ: NYC
• 1998 -
  This content is protected
  formed. HQ: Atlanta, GA
• 1999 -
  This content is protected
  formed. (USA/Canada/Mexico). HQ: Indianapolis, IN
  
• 2000 -
  This content is protected
  formed (Brazil only). HQ: São Vicente
  
• 2000 -
  This content is protected
  formed. HQ: Cooper City, FL
  
• 2002 -
  This content is protected
  formed (USA only). HQ: Coral Gables, FL
• 2006 -
  This content is protected
  formed (USA; subsidiary of WBPF). HQ: NYC
  
• 2014 -
  This content is protected
  This content is protected
  This content is protected
  (
  This content is protected
  This content is protected
  This content is protected
  ) formed** (Greater Asia). HQ: Seoul
• 2015 -
  This content is protected
  formed (transcontinental, Europe & Asia). HQ: Moscow

† - defunct or assimilated (NSC -> BBBofC; IBU [original] -> EBU; SL -> ANBF; NYSAC -> WBC; NBA [original] -> WBA; EBA killed in court by former parent org the WBA; CISSBB folded along with ABC into "Eurasian Boxing Council")

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

Bold - major world title sanctioning bodies. (fledgling status in the case of the IBO, currently in the same boat in which the WBO spent much of the 1990's. By now the WBO has been accepted into the fold with the "Big Three" by acclamation, though still considered less prestigious by some)
* While ostensibly neutral and unaffiliated with any of the major global powers, the FAB has been openly endorsed by the WBC as the sole authority to "graduate" domestic talent onto world title bouts (http://wbcboxing.com/wbceng/news/86...federation-with-the-sole-power-to-issue-exits)
** While originally chartered under the WBC, the EPBC was "dumped" by its parent organization, and soon adopted by the WBA, rebranding itself recently as "WBA Asia".
*** Originally chartered under the WBA; the relationship was dissolved in March 2016 when the WBA introduced their own titles supplanting PABA's.
**** A member of the WBC, the ANBF on a regional level also voluntarily enrolled with both the OBPF and PABA, which for a time was awkward since that meant it belonged to subsidiaries of rivals WBC and WBA, until the PABA separated from the WBA to become a free agent (see above).
♦ The Euro-African Boxing Association (later amended to just the European) formed a mutually beneficial alliance with the WBA shortly after its inception, providing the global superpower its first major presence in continental Europe, long the domain of primarily the WBC and WBO. In a bitterly protracted litigation taking up most of this current decade, the EBA tried and failed to sue the WBA leading to its bankruptcy and closure on the grounds that it was exploited for maximum gain and then unceremoniously discarded by the larger org.
♦♦ The USBA started as a regional subsidiary of the WBA. Its leaders withdrew following the 1983 convention and went rogue, transforming their organization into what we know now as the IBF. They were effectively replaced by the WBA with the NABA, fifteen years later.
♠ Not a professional boxing sanctioning body per se. (AIBA is for regulation of amateur/semi-pros only; NYSAC is no longer a sanctioning body despite being the main constituent of the WBC and its predecessor, nowadays just a state athletic commission like any other; ABC-CS provides intercommunication and regulatory oversight for all state/territory/district/tribal athletic commissions of the USA)

 

First off, I've seen a narrative spun about how the "Big Four" were all outgrowths of each other. This is false. There was never a "WBC and WBA schism". They were always rivals, 100% (except by different names in the roaring twenties - NYSAC and NBA respectively). Ironically, the WBA's predecessor, the NBA, was a reactionary coalition of thirteen other states' commissions (or seventeen, depending on whom you ask; the lore is a bit muddied with legend by now) to stop the NYSAC from gaining supreme authority over the sport across the country. Then, fast-forwarding about four decades, and the WBC is formed in response to a newly perceived threat of hegemony with the NBA blossoming into the more globally influential WBA the year before. Much as the NBA appealed to a broader base to "surround" the NYSAC and dampen its sphere of influence, the WBC when pulling the same move forty years later pulled from a geographically diverse (and powerful) array, finding allies and charter members with the BBBofC (with a particularly strong and storied prizefighting tradition, long awarding the 'merely' domestic but still coveted Lonsdale outright belt, along with securing the loyalty of the CBC giving the WBC very secure ties with the nation where the game really took root), EBU, Asia, being the first to make inroads with the sport's organizers in chiefly Latin American countries.

There were in fact "schisms" among the present-day major players, however, in the 80's, when a power struggle in the WBA caused an exodus of top brass who formed the IBF, building on the existing skeletostructure of the USBA and simply expanding its scope to be worldwide. Five years later almost the same exact scenario unfolded with some bitter WBA members splintered off during a convention dispute and concocted the WBO, probably emboldened by the quick success of the earlier spin-off IBF (although it would be a longer road to legitimacy for the second group of disgruntled WBA renegades - likely because it was a bunch of businessmen starting from scratch, instead of "boxing people" embellishing upon the already established and smoothly running national body, the USBA)

People also seem to get the "North American" titles mixed up on a regular basis. Here's the deal: there are five. Three of the big dogs - WBC, WBA, WBO - have their own iteration of the "North American championship" (NABF, NABA, NABO) and then there is the fourth, neutral NABC. The IBF and IBO have the USBA & USBO respectively - with jurisdiction only in one North American nation as opposed to all three.

Likewise, the "Euro" title has multiple definitions. Most commonly it refers to what most consider the premiere championship for the region, awarded by the EBU. The WBO cuts its teeth and built itself from the ground up largely in Europe and some consider its early history of title lineage to be on par with the EBU as "stepping-stones" to a legitimate world title. Both the IBF and (formerly) the WBA have their own rival European organizations, but neither approaches the clout of the EBU. Within the EBU there is a subdivision of "Eastern Union" and "External Europe", both subordinate to EBU titles, much as local area titles in the UK are subordinate to national and in turn British titles, and then Commonwealth etc.

And then we have women's boxing. There are umpteen more small-fry organizations that claim to recognize "world champions" - much as there are many pretender outfits in men's boxing. Most people don't follow the women's side closely enough to know which are the real McCoy, however. They have five major ones: the hard-to-differentiate four-letter ones being the WIBF, IWBF, WIBA, WIBF (of which only the IWBF has a counterpart in male boxing, the IBF), and the WBC, which is just the same organization by the same name and under the same administration for both genders. The rest are just ratchet ho trains you can ignore (much like the men's WBF, IBC, IBA, etc)

Being a champion in a subsidiary or affiliate organization automatically qualifies you for placement in the rankings of the parent org, although consideration for a spot within a certain # isn't guaranteed in most cases. These subsidiary/affiliate organizations as well as some lower-tier neutral ones such as the IBA (despite nominally considering themselves a purveyor of "world title" recognition) openly advertise themselves as "stepping-stones" on a path toward major world titles.

 

They are included up there.

 

All of the Big Four are problematic in various ways in modern times, and of course everybody yearns for a return to a simpler time with a single recognized champion in each division (although in reality that is a mythological construct; there was literally never a point in the sport's history where that happened) but there is a lot of misinformation and guesswork floating around when it comes to all the different bodies and how they interrelate. Particularly, the WBA is frequently cited as the "oldest" with the strongest connection to lineages of the 19th century up through 1921, and that is false. Even in their previous incarnation as the NBA, they are younger than NYSAC, which insomuch as, in the early 20th Century, it used to be a sanctioning body (dictating rankings and recognizing championships in their own name) rather than simply a state athletic commission as they are now (issuing boxers their individual licenses per medical exams and enforcing state legislative rules pertaining to combat sports) is the predecessor of the WBC and the core around which all the other constituents pledged when first chartered.

So all the circuitous arguments you see half-informed or flat out ignorant fans having about them, where somebody will say "the green belt is the most coveted! Floyd Mayweather Jr. and these others guys all grew up watching the WBC title battled for on TV and dreaming of capturing it!" and somebody else will retort "yes but the WBA came first and is the one that you can trace all the way to before the fractured era when there was just one champ!" and then someone else chiming in "well they are flip sides of the same coin anyway, didn't they split from each other at one point after previously being the same organization?" etc. - can now be nipped in the bud.

I would argue the WBC, though certainly never a perfect entity, is both the "eldest" and the most prestigious of the Big 4, when you consider its original charter members included the NYSAC (the first American group bold enough to decree world champions) the venerable and honored BBBofC (which does bridge the gap with the LPR era via its predecessor the National Sporting Club), and the CBC, EBU and OPBF giving it not only massive territory by area but also marrying it to all the proud traditions of those regions' histories in the sport, having been governed by those charter members for several decades before the WBC held its first convention. The WBA is their nearest rival, and longest-running arch-nemesis (with, admittedly, perhaps the original claim to having the moral 'right' on their side when the dozen-plus state commissions balked at New York monopolizing the ability to crown world champions, thus opening the door to favoritism toward boxers that competed at the "Mecca"), but also has been rife with corruption for a good chunk of their history and clearly had a hard time keeping their house in order considering not one but TWO coups/walkouts have been led to directly poach from their number executives of a new rival startup org - and they are probably the one against which fans today levy the most complaints about their administrative policies (interim/regular/super etc). Plus, the fact is that most boxers themselves (and coaches, etc) do value the WBC highest, followed by the WBA. By necessity the IBF and WBO can never rise to higher than #3 and #4 respectively. The positions are pretty much all fixed IMO barring sweeping changes that would affect their relative degrees of respectability.

At this point any other entity (the IBO seems to be the most robust to emerge in recent years) is going to have a whale of a time even catching up with the WBO to break into the Big 4. For all the problems they each have, there is just too much collective history between the WBC and the WBA (and its spawn) to be trumped by a latecomer.

Dismissing them all en masse and saying you acknowledge only the Ring Mag, or "lineal" (whatever the **** that is; see GlaukosTheHammer's thread for a quick lesson on what a pointless fool's errand and cluster**** keeping track of that is), or TBRB or anything else is all very well and nice and hipstery, but the fact is that no fighter cares about those, no fighter has ever declared that his ultimate goal was to become Ring or lineal or TBRB champ, and no fighter is paying any of those sanctioning fees in exchange for the privilege of holding those distinctions. World titles matter; they are the whole point and the ultimate prize of prizefighting at the highest level, and so establishing a pecking order among them based on historical trends and realizing as fans which are worthiest of attention, or why, is knowledge that has its place.

 

I mean, kind of yeah. The "champ makes the belt" argument does play a role in the IBF gaining a stronger and more expedient foothold in the game (being seen on nearly equal terms with the original "Big Two" within less than a decade flat) than did the WBO - there are really a confluence of factors too numerous to fit in a brief post, though. Bottom line is they attracted the best champions to flock under their banner, as they had the USBA to build around, plus they were higher-ranking WBA executives and thus had relationships in the sport that were more far-reaching and conveyed more of a sense of "authority" than were the WBO rebels five years later.