IBF, WBA, WBC or WBO

Ring is garbage.

 

check out what Froch has to say about the WBC around 5 minutes in this vid

[yt]uydb49NCzEA[/yt]

 

WBC/IBF #1a/b
WBA <--although the lately they got too many damn champs




WBO <---still and always will be a second-tier title.

 

That used to be mostly true.

Not any more.

Dawson was forced to give up his WBC belt to fight Tarver.

When he won, he was clearly the man at 175, despite holding the IBF belt rather than athe WBC.


And the WBC forced Peter to remtch Toney to get his shot at the WBC title.

Jose Suliman is a joke and the WBC is fast becoming one too.

The WBA ?

What can I say? Regular champions and superchamps etc.


At this point, it depends on the man, not the belt.

The RING title, flawed as it is, is the most credible at this point.



As for weights, the old days of seven weights was fine.

IF we need more than seven, I would suggest the following ten.

(With ONE belt at each weight, reducing the number of title-holders from 68 to 10)

Heavy

cruiser 200 limit

LHW 175 limit

Middle 160 limit

Welter 147 limit

Light 135 limit

Feather 126 limit

Bantam 118 limit

Flyweight 112 limit


MIDGET WEIGHT 107 (New)

 

IBO
WBU
IBA
WBF
IBC
GBF

I think the computerised rankings of the IBO make it pretty damn legit, and the WBU have Choi as a champ so there the top two. And of course, theres the UNDISPUTED Heavyweight Champion of the World (IBA CONTINENTAL BELT STYLE BABY!), the legendary Oliver McCall so he lends some credibility to the title atsch