How you rate the boxing belts right now

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by yeyo monster, Sep 23, 2013.


  1. yeyo monster

    yeyo monster Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,198
    937
    May 4, 2012
    How you rate the boxing belts right now?

    For me the WBO ironically is the most credible, but the wbc is the more with prestidge.

    right now for me is:

    wbo
    wbc
    wba
    ibf

    ring magazine is so bias this days that i stop thinking about how special it was at some moment
     
  2. MrMagic

    MrMagic Loyal Member Full Member

    39,534
    71
    Oct 28, 2004
    WBC always had the most prestige for me, always.

    I don't really care for belts.
     
  3. damian38

    damian38 BigDramaShow Full Member

    25,548
    203
    Sep 11, 2011
    they're all **** and worthless, especially the wba with their 3 'champions' per division rule
     
  4. Robney

    Robney ᴻᴼ ᴸᴼᴻᴳᴲᴿ ᴲ۷ᴵᴸ Full Member

    93,171
    27,894
    Jan 18, 2010
    IBF is the least bad imo, WBA sucks the most at the moment.

    IBF

    WBC
    WBO
    WBA
     
  5. KO KIDD

    KO KIDD Loyal Member Full Member

    30,275
    5,902
    Oct 5, 2009
    They are all pretty bad, RING for me is most credible since its toughest to get

    WBO appears to have the least stocking stuffer champs like the Silver, Super, Interim, Regular bull crap that goes around

    Didnt the WBC initially fracture the belts in 2, did Suliman create the split that we have today and the WBA was really the first belt or is my history wrong
     
  6. Momus

    Momus Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,732
    2,571
    Nov 27, 2010
    Any sentence involving alphabet boxing belts and "credibility" is an oxymoron.

    The belts have virtually no intrinsic value. The prestige is in the fighters you beat, not the trinket that comes with it.

    The Ring championship concept was a breath of (relatively) fresh air when it was relaunched, but has been watered down by policy changes and vested interests.