Inconsistency is inconsistency. Saying one is more consistent is like saying that one liar is more truthful than the other.
I think most peoples main problem with the alphabet bodies is the mandatory system. So the IBF being consistant there actually makes them worse. People want stable title lineages and the IBF enforcing their policies makes them worse at this. The inconsistancy is(often) there because these sanctioning bodies aren't going to strip a credible champion for not fighting an arbitrary opponent. That is the right thing to do trying to act as if they have the right to dictate to a champion what individual opponent they should fight is the wrong thing to do.
Can't say I'm in agreement with you at all I'm afraid The mandatory system stops fighters being lazy champions I find your take truly bizzare Of course they have the right to tell a champion who to fight, it's their organisations belt
Remember we are at the end of the day, talking about a sport where people punch each other in the face We were never going to get wholesome and good moraled people running it
Fighters being "lazy champions" is the lesser of two evils. They aren't preventing years of inactivity here they are dictating specific opponents and stripping belts if those opponents aren't fought. Well then they can't complain when people get mad at them for that. That is not reasonable was never reasonable and will never be reasonable. And the reason for inconsistancy is they know that and are trying to put forth the best image for their organization. Thats why they are running circles around their own rules because their own rules are dumb. My take is the basis of frustration with alphabet bodies. Theres nothing bizzare about it.
It's absolutely bizarre to me Whilst we're at it let's tell Man City they don't have to face Ipswich this season
This is not soccer. A more open ended mandate like fight one of the top 5 might be reasonable. But thinking you have the right to pick a champs opponents or half the opponents is just egregious. This arrogance is what leads to many belt vacations and strippings.
Good, if they won't fight the ORG's number 1 ranked fighter then get stripped and move on I wish every sanctioning body did it more often How is it arrogant to have a ranking system in place and use it for how your organisations belt is defended?
To me it seems like people have gotten used to the WBA and the BS they engage in. They were supposed to eliminate multiple title holders in every division years ago, but they still have the regular, interim and super-duper belts. Not to mention the 1000 minor trinkets and ridiculous rankings. How can you be so bad that Boxrec memory holes you? Oh, and now they are in the Saudi´s pockets too, which is just wonderful.
Thats the problem with boxing. "use if for how your organizations belt is defended". Theres lots of uses for a ranking system short of mandating a champ fight a specific opponent. That is not reasonable that is arrogant especially in a situation with 4 different arbiters. The rankings and regional champs should be like a menu of options for a champion to fight. Like how Foreman fought Crawford Grimsley because some genius at the WBA thought he should be rated 9th.
Complete bollocks Mandatory systems keep boxing as a sport (just about) If the belt holder isn't willing to that particular organisations number 1 challenge then he isn't really acting as a champion should If it's a finance thing then that's fine, drop the belt and move on Having a list of for champions to chose from? That's like giving them a menu They'll choose what they prefer and not what's required They get voluntary defences in between, that's their window of opportunity to do their own business You keep enjoying boxing in the way you believe it should be It's because of this that champions and ORG's act the way they do Because we as fans have allowed it
The problem is the rankings themselves are predicated on a disgusting pay to play scheme, the rankings are never based on merit.