If you had to pick one of the four major organizations to rule boxing

WBO enforce their mandos and theres not that lame rehydration clause that the ibf has

 

Wbc based solely on the belt otherwise I could give a **** about the org

 

I don’t know what y’all are yapping about in this thread but despite the flaws the obvious answer is the WBC, WBC typically has the best champions and championship fights which is all that matters to me.
WBA got too many belts in every division, and the IBF/WBO have the WEAKEST mandatories in the sport in the case of the IBF they consistently mess up unification fights with they bs mandos(then again that could just be the fighters) and WBO doesn’t allow you to hold titles in multiple divisions at once

 

All bad options, but IBF is clearly the best of this special alphabet org Olympics.
Seem the least currupt and biased, probably due to them getting busted by their mirror org back in the day, and have the most transparant and consistent rules.

IBF

WBO
WBC

WBA

 

The wbc doesnt have the best champions what u talking about. the little green belt has brainwashed you

HW: Fury or Usyk arguable

CW: IBF

LHW: Originally IBF, took wbc's belt

SMW: Took WBA's belt who was top dog, got wbc vacant

MW: IBF

154: WBO

147: IBF, took wbcs belt

140: IBF, took wba, wbc and wbo away from the champs

135: Loma has no belt atm but WBC Haney is 2nd best

130: Valdez or Shakur arguable for best in division

126: WBO

122: 2 unified champions

118: WBA and IBF unified champ

115: Chocolatito has no belt atm, 2nd best estrada is WBA

112: arguable who is best in division

 

Wbo. Because it seems to me there the most efficient at making sure the mandatory’s fight the holder of the belt belts like the wbc seem to only in force mandatory’s if they want to. Dylan Whyte being an example where they didn’t force Fury/Wilder to fight him for 5 years.

 

If I had to choose, I'd say the IBF. Despite the fact that they're so willing to have # 1 spots vacant despite having fighters at 2-10, instead of just moving each person up a notch. That was always weird to me. But at least they don't have 7 champions per division. I guess that counts for something.

 

They also been PROVEN corrupt in that case involving Bob Lee 25 years ago.

 

I think I agree with this the oldest two WBA and WBC are the worst of the bunch. with the IBF and WBO being less dodgy.
I wouldn't have a problem with either one or two orgs that would have to unify as mandatory to become undisputed.
Get rid of the super duper belts and do weigh in before the ring walk to eliminate the weight bullying bollocks.
I would then finally get rid of most of the newer weight divisions keeping Cruiser and Super Middle. so there's 10 weight divisions only.

 

Oh, they're most definitely all corrupt entities, however this is a question about the lesser of "4" evils. We had to pick someone

 

Technically you are right but…..****’em all.

 

IBF or WBO.

 

WBO or IBF.

Anyone who votes WBA is probably trolling.

 

Weak mandotories is irrelevant if the IBF or WBO were to become the only recognized world title.

 

WBA and WBC are both a combination of incompetent, laughably terrible and just outright corrupt.

WBA in particular have worked hard to earn the crown of the worst organisation, not just in boxing but in all sports. Their regular title farce and their random promotion of club fighters into their top 10 to justify "title" fights is so terrible it's just funny.

And don't start me on the blatantly corrupt WBC.

Between IBF and WBO for ok boxing orgs. I'd go with IBF.