Generally speaking then To be fair, I haven't seen a lot of Lazcano, Boxing Monthly has him in the top 8.
I had a big discussion about the ills of the alphabets last night. We all know the problems but sadly they are a necessary evil. I generally still think if you get the WBC, WBA & IBF "champs" to fight each other you will be left with the best fighter in the world. The three belt system would work if they weren't so keen to strip people but instead had "box offs" to decide the number one challenger like the IBF recently did at heavy. I actually thought this was a very positive thing from the IBF for once & a step in the direction. Personally I prefer to pretend the rest don't exist & refer to any fights with those other baubles involved as simply 12 round fights like the yanks do.
correct it was.........but I'm afraid you've told me nothing I don't know . WBA , IBF , WBC , WAA , WBU , WBF , IBO , IBC , GBU , it doesn't ****ing matter cause they are all bull**** . I'm not exactly Keen on the Ring title either , due to situations such as Hopkins being champ(despite Erdei being lineal) and Vitali becoming champ despite only beating their #3 ranked fighter but I guess in the main the Ring belt means a little more as it usually(but of course not always) is the true champion .
I can remember the IBF being the 'joke' belt when Bob Lee first started the organization. Seems strange for me to see it mentioned in the 'Big 3', I've always thought of the 'Big 2' and then the IBF
Seriously, what is the point. Why do this when he could be known rightfully as the BRITISH CHAMPION! How can the letters WBU mean more than best in Britain.
Because he can call himself a world champion! Even though it is a total paper championship, and it is not even 'lightly regarded', in fact nobody gives a **** about it! You could probably start your own sanctioning body, chin your best mate outside a nightclub when totally sloshed and call yourself a world champ! Thats what the WBU, IBC & WBF are to me.
Theres that many ways to the top these days the Birish belt is getting pushed aside. There used be that logical path, area title, British title, Euro title, world title. A boxer might skip one of those titles if he was progressing fast enough but generally that was the path you had to take for a world title shot.
They installed Larry Holmes as their heavyweight champ giving it instant recognition. Several proper champs held the title soon after it's conception. Thats brilliant.:rofl I have to say though in general we have seen a welcome return to people going the traditional route in recent times. Friday Fight Night seems to show more British, Commonwealth & EBU fights. The bogus world titles were really more of a Warren thing.
Ive sometimes thought about contacting the WBF and becoming one of thier belt holders at one time most of the belts were vacant it couldnt hurt to have a fat little sod as a belt holder just look at Rees They would probaby want shed loads in fees tho. If he fought Lueveno he would get totally outboxed If he wants another paper belt there fair enuff but hes not going anywhere
Yep, putting Holmes in a champ was a smart move but still at the time and for years later the IBF was a distant third to the WBC and WBA in prestige. TBH I don't give a **** anymore, the fighter makes the belt.
Exactly, it doesn't mean **** if you've got the ABC, XYZ or 123 they all have their faults. I love how people act like the WBO is any worse than the rest Real fans know who the true champions are
This reminds me of Damien Kelly, who unified the IBO and WBF flyweight titles. Then he got a shot at Irene Pacheco's IBF flyweight title, and guess what happened....
Lots of guys on here are pushing for the WBO to be considered a genuine world title. They must have some other interest other than boxing (maybe a favourite fighter is/was WBO "champion"). Surely the last thing boxing needs is another world title.