Let's discuss new WBA HW rankings

I didn't know that, good history.

 

Yeah, that's a fair summation. They are all bad in different ways. I'd have a slight preference for WBC since they have better rankings, but as you said, they are more corrupt in their rule application.

 

More than 20 years ago, in February and May 1998, Guillermo Jones lost back to back challenges to WBA Super Welterweight champ Laurent Boudouani.

The WBA is the worst.

 

There's no point applying the rules consistently.....If your rankings are trash.
There's no point in have good rankings.....If you don't apply the rules consistently.


The WBA have their Super and Regular belts.....
The WBC have their Regular and Silver - Is that any different?

Now the WBC are adding 'Trainer belts'.


Like I said before, all are incompetent and corrupt.

Arguing for one over the other is just a waste of time.

 

The problem with all the organisations is the consistency.

Whether this is fueled by corruption, or just general incompetence, we can only guess and assume.


I commended the WBC when they announced the Porter v Garcia (1 v 2) for the vacant WBC belt.
It was the correct thing to do.

But then they went and announced Breazeale v Molina, when Molina was outside the top 10, for WBC HW mandatory.....
They then backtracked and claimed 'It isn't a final eliminator' when the WBC was criticized by boxers, media, fans and promoters.....
Then announced after the fight that it again was!


Corruption or ineptitude?
It's irrelevant really.....
Just no consistency.

 

Can't believe Lovejoy's in there, the man's practically an antique.