Does anybody know if the different sanctioning bodies, namely the big four (WBC, WBA, IBF, and WBO) work together on their rankings, in order to make an attempt at having some kind of consistency as to who the best fighters are? I've heard of a lot of crap going on over the years, where unified champions get stripped of their belts for political reasons. Mostly because the different organizations are asking them to do contradictory things and defend against different people in order to keep their belt. Do they discuss their rankings at all with the other belt organizations?
I dont think so, off the top of my head i would probably lean towards a no answer, since the IBF is the ****** of the 4 in terms of mandatories, awarding and stripin. The Wba has a two belt holder system which is also ******ed, so i dont think so.
yeah, they will sometimes drop a fighter that reaches the number one ranking of another body. If you want to call that working together. A short answer would be NO, but a closer look would show that the THREE have at times over the years worked together. The WBO has been a blacksheep, or a stepchild in the family since it started up in the late 1980's. They rarely ever agree with the others, and has been the reason that alot of fighters over the years have dropped belts. The three major ones IBF, WBC, WBA came together and said hey we need one set of rules that will apply to all title fighters no matter were they are held, and no matter what belt is on the line, the WBO said hell no, we want no part of that. I could go into the reasons but it would take to long. But after much pressure in the STATES the Puerto Rican based WBO agreed to abid by those rules, but only for the fights based and fought in THE Americas. Meaning that fights held in Europe would still be fought under local commission rules, or what ever ****ing rules the promoter wants the fight to be fought under.
When they want a unified champion, they do, and have to work together, as they did when Tyson was holding all the titles. But if they don't want to work together, a unified champion can be stripped within what seems like days, cause they can have intentionally confliciting mandatory demands. But ...... To keep a fighter unified, they have to sit down together and agree on whom is the most deserving mandatory that he has to fight, and by when. The schedule they give him has to be doable, and agreed upon by all three bodies. But I don't think any of the orgs do want a single champion, and the Ibgrag Chag winner will probably be stripped of one of those titles before he knows what hit him.
It has to be in the best interest of eash body. If you have a guy like Tyson that would generate HUGE money fights then there is enough MONEY to go around. Each body would get good sums for fees, thus making it viable to work together. On the other hand if you have a undisputed champ like Tarver then not so much. Which leads one back to the reason that the WBO would never agree to the unified rules of boxing commissions. You see it was something that European promoters were not in favor of, and at that time the WBO was a title that didnt hold much merit outside of Europe even though it was based in the Americas. Its been said that some European promoters namely that one guy in Germany I cant remember his name but it starts with a K end with an L and has O and H in the middle, had no problem paying larger then normal fees if he had certain rights or reign to pick judges, and other officals:hey . In the end for the bodies its about money and not about making the best fights or doing the right thing. Which is the reason that we the fans get pissed off or should i say pissed on time and time again.
I still don't really understand how one of the belt organizations would lose money if there was a unified champion. Even if a fighter has all three belts, they are still paying a sanctioning fee to each organization for every fight, right? So, for example, it wouldn't matter to the WBC if a fighter is the WBA champion as well, because they are still getting paid to sanction each fight/defense.
No, when you fight for another title you get pulled from rankings in the orgs. It's crazy ****. Get rid of the IBF and WBO.
I don't really see how that would help too much Achilles. I mean, of course I agree that there should be only one, maybe two recognized world titles out there. But why the WBC? I always thought of Jose Sulaiman as being one of the most inconsistent, corrupt people in the sport, even if the WBC has been around longer than the other belts. I remember reading a quote from him that said something like, "we have to recognize at this point that we've been weaker with Pongsaklek (Wonjongkam) than with some of our other champions." And that made me angry because, what the ****, there are people who have fought to earn the right to challenge for the title. But because of politics they will never get their shot.
the bodies get a percentage of the total money, so if you have a big name big draw fighter then they are willing to allow that fighter to hold all the belts. But for the most part its in there best interest if they have one belt one fighter, because sometimes a unified champ will only defend one title in which case the other groups lose out all together. One belt per fighter means that every fight is a title fight for that belt and fees to go along.
History and linear lay in the WBC and WBA. They cover all of the orgs that once dictated who the champ was. The WBC is also a splinter group BUT it covers major orgs such as EU, BBBofC so serves a purpose. The rest don't. WBC and WBA are corrupt but so is everyone else. We should look to try and keep them clean via checks and balances.
Ofcourse they do, just because they don't recognize the same guy as a mandatory doesn't mean they don't work together. They're all in the business of making money, and if having a few 'champions' and 'contenders' floating around so be it. It really sucks for loyal boxing fans while these guys are calculating which fighter will make them the most money. I love the sport of boxing but I hate the politics behind it. If there is another Tyson-esque fighter believe me, the sanctioning bodies would love him to represent them:deal
