How Do You Rank The Belts?

They Big 4 about the same, each have their pros & cons

 

They all hold so little value in terms of determining who the best fighter in the division is, that I don’t really care!

To call any of them “prestigious”, would be an insult to prestige!

 

wbo
wbc
wba
ibf

 

IBF is getting weird with the top 2 pay me to get ranked deal, most fans agree the WBA extra titles are also not a good idea

I am guessing that's why you ranked them lower :think

 

wbo is oldest right ???

but i think wbc is most prestigious

 

they all suck

 

WBC: not the oldest but more greats have held this belt than number 2 WBA
WBA: oldest belt, therefore has more weight than most
IBF: I am old enough to remember when the IBF was regarded as low as the WBF or IBO strap today
WBO: I have hard time sometimes even today to consider this a real belt. I know all organizations and 99% of fans consider it legit I still have trouble holding it in high regard

That all being said, today the fighter makes the belt. Whether a top tier or best fighter in a division holds a belt or not most should see them champ (I am refer to if they get striped for some crazy reason). Fighters like Wlad, Ward, Serg a couple years back, Floyd and Rigo are/were the best and most fans, writers and pundits recognize that

 

No the newest

 

so in a world of alphabet titles is it possible for a new contender to come on the scene, rank fighters without prejudice and with intelligence and could it become the most credible belt?
The Internet Forum Boxing Alliance

cut a couple of divisions out, add a superheavyweight class, regular top 10 tournaments etc

doh i suggested intelligent and unprejudiced lol

 

The WBC belt seems to have the best champions and be the belt Americans want the most, but it does have major flaws like all the other belts.

The solution to these multiple orgs is so simple, I'm surprised no one has done it.

 

Wbc
wba
ibf
wbo

 

1. Wbc
2. Wba
3. Wbo
4. Ibf

 

Yeah it would be possible and not even that hard.