I have absolutely no respect for the WBO and WBA sanctions. In fact the WBA has now taken over the WBO spot for my least respected sanction. The super champion and ordinary champion is just pure bull**** and I hope whosever idea that was finds himself in a ditch somewhere getting raped by aids infested Gorillas. I respect the IBO the most but the WBC has more prestige in it for me. Here how I would rank the sanctions I respect 1. IBO 2. IBF 3. WBC 4. WBO 5. WBA
The fact that they do rank other org's champs is a huge mark in their favour, I think. That's always seemed so petty to me. I don't know what to make of computerized rankings, though. They seem better than Boxrec (which does very strange things) but I've never found anything detailing their algorithm. I see the point of computerized rankings to try to be transparent, but I also question how such an approach can capture an impressive performance in a losing effort or a lackluster winning one. Fairest and most realistic? Strange things do happen in their rankings, but they're less egregious and it'd be nice to have an idea of their algorithms. But yeah, I'd say they're better than the other 4.
I tend to agree, they never had any serious issues beside they have weak selection for their mandatories. But the WBO champions usually are never ducking their mandatories and fight rather more often than champions from other organizations.
The Ring title. The rest are all guilty of just disgraceful ratings and shennanigans, if pressed I would was either WBA or WBC titles, it seems to me the fighters value the green belt the most - Only my impression anyway.
If you hold 3 or more of belts at 1 time then your a real champ. One of any belt dont really mean much.