Rank the belts!

Can't believe De La Hotti's crappy magazine's belt is so highly regarded.

 

Ring belt

Yahoo belt

 

They are all crap and hurt boxing in a very significant way.

Holyfield is fighting for the WBA belt. Jesus that is disgusting.

 

Ring

WBC
IBF
WBA
WBO

 

1. WBC
2. IBF; WBA
3. WBO
4. The Ring Belt
5. IBO (it wont take long, until the IBO champ will be recognized as a real world champion, like it happened with the WBO :| )

The worst crap is the WBO, IBO, ring and the WBA regular belt. This really is, what makes boxing ridiculous. How can it be, that we have so many world champions :roll: ?

I wish back the times, where we just had WBC WBA IBF. 3 belts are still too much, but o.k.

 

they're all **** even The Ring...tainted by corruption, stupidity, and childish hate

fighters make the belt

 

Wbc
Wba
Ibf

Ibo
Wbo
Wbu

 

The sanctioning body that currently has the most credibility is the IBF. The casual fans consider the WBC title as the best. Some talk about The Ring Belt as a real title too.

 

1. Ring
...
...
...
...
WBC - the fighters' themselves seem to prefer this one. There still bent.
WBO & IBF - one has **** rankings but doesnt force manadtories, the other strips fighters for not fighting **** mandatories.
...
...
WBA - Super & Regular world champions...?! Are you have a FACKING LARF?!

 

Ring
WBC
IBF
WBA
WBO
IBO

 

The IBF sticks to it's rules better than any of the others, and for that I suppose it must be given credit.

But the rules are ****!

Some of the mandatories that appear are bizarre.......

 

They're all a joke and need to be consolidated.

 

Ring Belt
WBC
WBA
IBF

WBO
IBO

 

Whatarock, ya mongrel!!!!!! I was looking through the 3 pages to see if anyone had the intelligence to suggest exactly what you said..'a belt is only as good as the champ who holds it'... Cheers mate.
Thats exectly where the creditations begin and end.. Its a disgrace that money basically buys belts now, yet the most legitimate Champion in each division is clearly visible to any boxing fan. Unfortunately, arguements still rage, as too often, we dont have the chance to see legitimate champs mix it together.
Nostalgiacally, the WBA and WBC reserve the rights to their own accolades, not neccessarily the holders of each governing bodies belts. The WBC has been questionable over the years..... mainly thanks to the Don King circus.

 

The Ring belt is the best. You actually have to fight good fighters to get it, or beat the previous champ, the way it should be. Why is them not forcing mandatories bad? Worthless mandatory fights hurt boxing as much as anything. Most guys just ditch the belt rather than take a crap mandatory fight these days anyway, there's always another ABC belt to win. Ring champs generally do the right thing and fight other top fighters, I can't think of a Ring title defence that wasn't against someone at least in the Rings rankings. I don't see the favouritism in the Rings pages others claim to either, some people are just looking for a reason to ***** if you ask me.

The IBO aren't a bad group but they aren't big time and hopefully never will be, unless some of the other groups close, we don't need a big 5, a big 4 is bad enough.

The WBC seems to attract the highest level fighters, but they're complete money grubbers, shaking guys down for money to allow them to take non title matches, that sounds like extortion to me.

The WBA started this super champion bull**** which has made it impossible to unify a division.

The WBO are probably the weakest group, they attract the worst fighters as champions and alot of people still don't consider them to be in the same league as the others.

The IBF have actually had people sent to prison for fixing ratings, so whatever people may suspect about other groups can actually be proven about the IBF. The do seem to attract higher level fighters than the other except the WBC, especially from America.

If I had to put them in other, it'd go

The Ring

WBC
IBF
WBA

WBO
IBO

The rest.