How do you rank the 4 sanctioning bodies in terms?

So if put on the spot ud say?

WBC

WBA

IBF

WBO

?

 

Mayweather has been in 22 world title bouts: (incidentally, two fewer than currently had by Wladimir Klitschko and three away from tying Evander Holyfield, Terry Norris, Hank Armstrong, Larry Holmes, Marco Antonio Barrera, Roy Jones Junior & Muhammad Ali for eleventh place - with the names ahead of them including Pongsaklek Wonjongkam, Finito Lopez, Tiger Michalzewski, Joe Louis, Abe Attell, Virgil Hill, Oscar De La Hoya, Bernard Hopkins and Julio Cesar Chavez)

9 @ 13lbs (all WBC)
4 @ 135lbs (all WBC)
1 @ 140 (WBC)
5 @ 147 (all but one involving the WBC, three just the WBC, one a "unification" with the lightly-regarded IBO & IBA...so basically counting as the fourth just WBC)
3 @ 154 (two involving the WBC, one just the WBC and the other a WBA unification)

 

I would flip the WBA and WBC, myself - or put them side by side. The WBA ultimately has the history and lineage which should be its trump card but its faded image along with most high-profile boxers preferring the WBC make it close.

The IBF is second tier, WBO third, all the rest (IBO/IBA/WBF, etc) a distant and quite meaningless fourth.

The Ring Mag belt, if you asked me to place it, even before the magazine's acquisition by GBP, was only ever third-tier itself, behind the big four and the WBO. It was never really a legitimate belt, though some fans and journalists went nuts for it. :conf

 

Ok, ur thoughts on the WBA is very interesting

I guess Ring Magazine lost all credibility when GBP bought it, which for me is a great pitty.... Lord Lonsdale would be turning in his grave, it is a very old and recognised establishment, I guess the rise of the internet also played a part in its downfall. But I still look towards it maybe not their rankings but their belt holders for as an idea for the champ in each division, IMO they rarely get it wrg

 

I think The Ring lost most of its credibility with the infamous US Boxing Championship tournament in the 70s. Farhood tried his best post its 1990 comeback, but The Ring never got back its credibility; with the exception of the period in 87/88 when it had the balls to call Spinks not Tyson Heavyweight Champion of the World...

 

They're all tinpot. But the WBA is self destructing. Their championship criteria is embarrassing.

The WBCs history is full of corruption and they contradict themselves horribly. Plus they are biased as ****.

The IBF have a rotten history band they treat champions horribly, Jamie McDonnell for example.

The WBO probably has the least to be embarrassed about, but their top 15 rankings are usually much worse than the other three. Plus the belt still has an image problem.

The Ring mag still has the best championship criteria out of all of them abd is the best way to spot the real champion of the division. Regardless of any critisism.

 

WBC, IBF, WBA, WBO

WBO is a massive joke. For example Adrien Broner can call himself a world champion at Jr Lightweight just for beating Vincente Rodriguez for the title.

The WBA is 3rd because of their silly Super Champions and World Champion **** they have going on. I.e. Even though they recognise Wlad as a Super World Champ they are gonna give away the belt Povetkin vacated by beating losing to Wlad.

The other two is a coin toss really but more boxer seem to value the WBC than the IBF

 

IBF is the best IMO no crappy regular champions or that **** and it has more prestigee then the WBO
WBC Second while they have been corrupt as **** in the past i would say it's the belt most fighters want to hold.
WBO always seen as a weaker belt but TBH with the way belts are now it's more the fighter makes the belt not the other way round, i mean Bradley, Garcia, Kovalev, Rigondeaux all hold WBO belts ATM hardly weak champions.

WBA is now a joke IMO, they are by far the worst for trinket belts, Regular WBA, Interim WBA, Super Champion ect it may have once been the best title but now it's a joke of an organisation.Almost every division has at least 2 WBA Champions and several have 3, Shocking that an organisation could see 3 fighters as World Champions.

 

WBC in terms of prestige. credibility possibly the IBF.

 

The founder of the IBF did time for corruption in the organization...

 

All have their pros/cons, the thing that winds me up most about any of the organizations though is the "Super" "Regular" "Interim" Champions with the WBA. The fact that Scott Quigg and probably Martin Murray will both be advertised as "World Champions" is an absolute farce IMO.

 

wbc has wilder 3rd in its heavyweight rankings for knocking out bums/journeymen, says it all really

 

Not defending the WBC per se, but what that actually shows is how weak the Heavyweight division is, and generally always has been. Going back through the years loads of Heavyweights have got a decent rating beating mainly bums. Foster, Bobick, Bruno, Any continental European champion from the early 70s through to Damiani's reign, and Spinks come immediately to mind.

 

Ibf
wbo
wbc
wba