Is the IBF the only half decent governing body, of the big four, these days?

It used to be that the IBF was the most corrupt of the lot, but since the FBI started taking an interest in boxing, things have changed for the better. These days, the IBF even insist that their champs fight mandatory challengers and even give them a deadline to do it by.

The WBC used to be bad, under Don King + Sulaiman, but now, they're not much better. They don't enforce mandatories against champs they see as stars or future stars (e.g. Dawson and Diaconu fiasco - they only dropped Dawson once he dropped the belt!) and they make guys who shouldn't be ranked in the top 3 mandatory challengers! What has Vitaly Klitschko done recently to deserve to become mandatory challenger? What is this emeritus champion bollocks? Either you make overhyped, well-marketed champs fight mandatories like everyone else and have retired stars of the ring have to prove themselves again after being out of action for a couple of years before they get to be mandatory challengers, or you become a joke of a sanctioning organisation! They also have too many interim champs and regular champs at the same time!

http://www.fightnews.com/fightnews_2/headlines//EkkEAFyEFVfoXyCdOT.html


Then there's thw WBA...where shall I start? They don't enforce mandatories (e.g. Kessler and Mundine fiasco), they have regular and super champions (which has the advantage that the super champ can unify and not having to fight loads of mandatory challengers, whilst concentrating on gaining all the belts) and then they have, in some divisions, a couple of regular and super champions all at the same time. Nashiro, Arce and Mijares all WBA champs? Huh?


The WBO...well, except that they never enforce any mandatories and let TV veto which mandatories have a chance of actually being made, dody refereeing and letting the champ fight anyone at all in voluntary defences, they're OK.

Now, I'm not saying the IBF are perfect. They're not! They will rank almost anyone in the Top 15, allowing their champ to fight whomever they want. In that sense, they're either corrupt or letting their champ get away with fighting meaningless fights. But their mandatory challengers are pretty decent, and they do enforce them, on time. Fortunately, they also strip fighters who don't fight their mandatories, even when fans are up in arms! (e.g. Calzaghe).

So, out of the big four, the IBF is clearly the least bad sanctioning body!

And before you start telling me about The Ring, let me remind you The Ring is not a sanctioning body. It is a prize given by a magazine to the fighter they consider best in every division, usually because he has beaten the previous fighter who was given that prize.

Oh, yeah...the IBO! Well, we've discussed this before:

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=55371&page=2

 

I never said one or the other was worth more or less; I never said the IBF champs were better than the rest or that the WBA and WBO champs were weaker. I said the IBF is the least bad sanctioning body, because it enforced mandatories and has one champ...unlike the others. Even if all the IBF champs were the weakest and the WBO or WBA or WBC champs the strongest, the IBF would still be by far the least bad governing body, right now.

 

There will never be one body for the same reason there will never be one brand of operating system on PCs.

 

Much more than pro boxing is worth, that's for sure. Not only would current champs boycott it (they would lose money because they could no longer market themselves as world champs), but promoters would boycott it (they would lose money too, for the same reason)...not to mention the existing governing bodies and all the contenders and ranked fighters out there, hoping to get a title shot one day for one of the big four. So...it will never happen. It could only work if someone payed off all the big promoters, all the top fighters, all the hangers on of all the big sanctioning bodies, etc.