suppose your right saying that even if Oscar runs it corruptly its still better than the other organisations
It is, and I don't think it will be run corruptly. But historically, I don't think the likely perception would be that it's right. Imagine if Don Kind owned the WBC?
I honestly beleived it wil be run correctly, maybe when looked bakc upon it will cast a shadow on it. What you onw about Don King practilly ran the WBC in the 80s
sulaman is bad enough.If you think about it the orgs make their money by % of purses ,so a popular fighter makes them more money thats a highly fishy conflict of interest
It hasnt been changed yet, but the point is it was, and would always be better, when it was totally impartial because of no connection to a "promoter".
It is the best belt out there. Fair, and with history. A fighter can only lose it in the ring or if he reties, and it takes a #1 vs a #2 or #3 to crown a new champion.