How Do You Rank The Belts?

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by LordSouness, Mar 2, 2014.


  1. eltirado

    eltirado Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    15,706
    1,690
    Jul 31, 2013
    The IBF used to be strong, when they did rating straight out of FIGHTFAX reports (before BOXREC existed)...FIGHTFAX was the only source of info on contenders especially unknown new comers that the IBF used to rate before their names pop anywhere else...

    I mark the Acceptance of the WBO on the expense of the IBF with Hamed KO Tom Johnson & Bungu who were flagship IBF champions. Hamed started BOXREC after he unified the WBO/IBF, decided to keep the WBO & drop the IBF

    When champions decide to drop a belt because of excessive fees or policies, it hurts the belt, also ranking is no longer done of FIGHTFAX...this could be a discouragement caused by BOXREC

    The IBF has the most $ costly demands, I suspect promoters declare lower purses on purpose just to get back some $ from The IBF

    IBF did little to compete with others...the decline is bad, I prefer if the IBF/IBO/WBF merge into the IBF with IBO and WBF as subtitles that qualify for title shots, that way we avoid the nightmare of having other governing bodies and the IBF gets new blood
     
  2. Nonito Smoak

    Nonito Smoak Ioka>Lomo, sorry my dudes Full Member

    53,088
    6,686
    Sep 8, 2010
    IBF tries to stick to rules better than the rest.
    WBC usually at any given time has more of the best titlist of the divisions.

    I'll go:
    1. WBC
    2. IBF
    3. WBA
    4. WBO
     
  3. aussie opinion

    aussie opinion Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,751
    17
    Oct 30, 2010
    This is why the UFC making so much ground on boxing, not because of the MMA style but because the watered down titles, eg interim champion which all major organisations have.
    The belt doesn't mean as much as used to and the organisations don't have as much say they just want their fee, but with their fees are they inject money into sport or setting up programs
     
  4. acie2g

    acie2g Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,738
    1,302
    Jul 21, 2010
    For me it goes WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO in that order honestly though the champ makes the belts what it is, and vice versa for all the talk about how meaningless belts are the top 3 title holders, are all usually the best in the divisions even today how many weight classes can you point to and say 3/4 of the titlist aren't the top 3/4 guys in their division right now. I'm mean real champs not super, regular, interim titlist and ect...
     
  5. Scar

    Scar VIP Member Full Member

    76,121
    2,761
    Jul 20, 2004
    WBC all the way.
     
  6. KO-KING

    KO-KING Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,539
    9
    Feb 15, 2011
    WBC, WBA, IBF/WBO

    On how they look - means very little otherwise


    WBC = Mexicans, WBA = all about the Money, IBF = Blacks. WBO = Frank Fish eyes (used to be anyway)
     
  7. eltirado

    eltirado Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    15,706
    1,690
    Jul 31, 2013
    No thanks, the UFC still pays their top stars a cent out every dollar Tranny White makes, success is by how much fighters make. So far boxing is better, but promoters need to pay fighters more...cheap ****s should always be humiliated whenever possible