These sanctioning bodies have been getting worse and worse at the trinkets they give out. We all know it's a money grab. We will exclude all the intercontinental, Americas, Pan-Asia and hundreds of other little regional belts. Let's focus on the "World title" belts .... Let's start with the WBA...(Gravy train of Oqeundo, Charr and John Ruiz) -4 belts in one division.. Regular champion Super champion Interim champion Gold champion -WBC has the vaunted "Silver" belt, interim, and regular -The IBF only has one belt, but the make their winners defend their belt in 2 weeks or they automatically strip them, to only get 2 other fighters to put up fees to fight for it sooner. Crooks... -WBO seems okay. They do interim I think too. -WBF... I think James Toney won the HW version of this title at 48, lol
The WBU is the biggest joke. Not only did it have champions who were not even European level, who made no defences of the belt. But it also no longer exists. It looks like it effectively went belly up around 2006-2007. Their last HW champion was Matt Skelton who made 0 defences of the belt, and the last CW champion was Mark Hobson who also made 0 defences of the belt.
All of them are a sham. I'm not encouriging to just follow the lineage, as not everybody thinks it's a real thing, but if not the lineal championship, The Ring Magazine belt is the only one making sense.
IBF actually treat boxing as somewhat of a sport and endorse mandatory fights rather than make crap up in order for a fighter to avoid them Without mandatory systems boxing would be broken even more
Man tough choice. I picked the WBU. It's between them and the other obscure, unneeded bodies like WBF, IBO, & IBA. I've been following boxing for 45 years and never heard of any of these scams. It's bad enough we've got the "Big Four" (WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO)!!
Do you see Professor I C Chins these days? I hear he is still imparting his wisdom at the University of Lichtenstein in Germany!
WBA and it's not even close. WBC and IBF are the extremes in terms of enforcement so I understand both arguments. WBO no one gives a **** about. WBA have too many titles in each division, no consistency to their standards, and are widely regarded as a joke.
The WBU doesn't exist anymore and it was actually credible for a few years with Foreman and Toney. IMO WBU was better as an organization 5 in the 90s than the IBO is today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WBU_world_champions
The WBO is the worst of the big 4 but the WBO is the only one that actually has a specific reason to exist. So its kind of a paradox there. IMO the big 4s credibility is a fluid thing thats changing and its often depends on division. IBO and WBF are currently 5 and 6 and WBU was 4th or 5th best during the 90s. So IBA has to be the worst one.
Lately the WBA and IBA have been collaborating...scary! Seriously, the WBU or IBO absolutely has more credibility than these two cartels.
IBA sanctions the following championship bouts: World Title InterContinental Title Americas Title International Title Regional title : South Pacific, Caribbean, European, Latino , African , Middle East and Asian titles.
WBO is the best. Good regional fairness and doesn't screw fighters over to protect champs. WBA is the worst
They pick and choose when to enforce mandatory bouts. No different from the other sanctioning bodies.