Rank the Titles

This content is protected

Heavyweight
Cruiserweight
Light Heavyweight
Wladimir Klitschko
(Ukraine)
Johnathon Banks
(USA)
Antonio Tarver
(USA)

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

Record: 51-3
Record: 20-0
Record: 27-4
Middleweight
Welterweight
Light Welterweight
Daniel Geale
(Australia)
Isaac Hlatshwayo
(South Africa)
Ricky Hatton
(Great Britain)

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

Record: 19-0
Record: 28-1
Record: 44-1
Lightweight
Super Featherweight
Featherweight
Juan Diaz
(USA)
Billy Dib
(Australia)
Fernando Beltrán
(Mexico)
Photo to come.

This content is protected

Photo to come.Record: 34-1
Record: 21-0
Record: 31-3-1
Bantamweight
Super Flyweight
Flyweight
Silence Mabuza
(South Africa)
Zolile Mbityi
(South Africa)
Nonito Donaire
(Philippines)

This content is protected

Photo to come.

This content is protected

Record: 22-2
Record: 32-13-3
Record: 19-1
Strawweight


Nkosinathi Joyi
(South Africa)

This content is protected

 

IBO...Aussie-SA belt???

 

Yep Rock, along with the States, Europe and Mexico!

 

To be honest one of the things I like is the fact that it isn't just all about money with the IBO - no super champions, no interim champions (The WBA just had a world title and an interim title on the same card at the same weight - well done!). Mandatories are quite often a bane on the fight public and the champion; some of the mandatories enforced in the past are laughable match-ups from the IBF, WBC etc that have led to blatant mis-matches and quite often have more to do with the challenger's promoter than his ability. Are they sanctioning bodies or match-makers?
Hopkins-Calzaghe was never for an IBO title; Tarver was already our champion at the weight and we won't just strip any champ for sanctioning fees... unlike what happened to Roccigiani. Tarver has been IBO champ a couple of times and ditched the WBC title at one stage to fight for itas it was a better match-up fan-appeal and dollarwise for him to do so. Hatton has ditched the IBF title to concentrate on his IBO title and Malinaggi has as well so he can challenge Hatton. Some of the biggest names have been attracted to the IBO - Jones, Lewis, Hamed, Hatton, Tarver, Johnson and the list goes on and on. You are right though Hurricane; the IBO is growing and will continue to grow as we are looking at being an alternative to what some of these other organisations have been doing, and it should be about the fighter at the end of the day.
Geale is pointed out over his strength as a champ - you could scrutinise all other bodies and find champs that might not appeal. Geale will continue to get better and better and Mundine looms in his future

 

There is a provision within our rules BigFella so that option is always there. Those circumstances are weighed up in a few different ways before they are imposed and done rarely where a bloke as you say might really deserve a shot or a champ hasn't defended in some time.
No offence taken at your comment mate and I agree with you - some people are raping the sport and it is the point of the IBO to be different. To be honest, if we were just more of the same it would be pointless to be in existence

 

we are also on the same page regarding some of the weight divisions which I believe should not exist either. I have also always been of the opinion that Aussie titles should be over 12 but that is just MO. Good to see we can agree on some things mate!

 

Thanks mate, that is my aim mainly: to get across the message of the IBO, talk to others about boxing (I socialise outside of boxing circles), and also get a feel from the fans about issues that are important

 

the WBA are complete joke, they rank along side of WBF, IBA and these jokers, having 3 world champions in the same divsion like they have in 115 divsion and having a 122 title fight and interm 122title fight on the same card which happened last weekend, just flat out amazes me, i hate them

 

My thoughts exactly Big Fella - although worded a little differently! If you are not ready for 12 rounds you are not ready for the national title.

 

I'm with Ips the ring belt for me but with that saying I pick the best fighter in the division & stick with him regardless if he holds the belts or not.

 

This thread has lifted my spirits considerably since the Adam Watt news today.

I could not concur more. Cutting it back to 10 rounds for the national title has devalued the title to a dangerous level. Using the "health" line is ridiculous as other belts can waltz in and contest over 12 rounds and have seemingly more integrity and without apparently risking their fighters health. If its for health reasons then it should apply to all fights in Australia. A bit like Carbon credits. It only makes sense to take the risk if what you are doing is the industry standard and everybody complies.

Under the current system, if an Aussie fighter is loyal to the Australian title and gets a world title shot, that career critical fight is the first time that that fighter will have fought a 12 rounder which puts him at a huge psychological disadvantage.

Can you imagine the A-League playing 35 minute halves or any other sport compromising its national title to a lesser standard than the world standard? How can that do anything but decrease the integrity of the title and consequentially the quality of the fighters produced by that system!

When I am trying to analyse an upcoming fight, a key tale of the tape is how many 12 rounders has each guy fought?. Why? Because that is the currency of world class fighters and if we are to develop world champs from our domestic system and not have them run to America we have to replicate all of the conditions required to be a world champion. And that elite standard is 12 rounds for championship fights, shut the gate.

I exchanged vigorously with a couple of ANBFers at the Golden Gloves launch and from what I have heard, the health argument just doesnt stack up. All i see is devalued tradition, reduction in fighter quality and a confused marketplace.

In the old days fighters were classed as a 4 round fighter or a 6 round or an 8 round or a 10 round fighter as they progressed up the ranks and developed confidence and stamina. That moment in time when he fought a 12 round fight was for a belt and was a big thing and I can't believe we have taken that away from our fighters as a final stepping stone and "coronation".

For 100 years in this country a 12 round fighter was considered the top of the game, a main event fighter. This is the same for the rest of the world and hard to imagine that this fundamental law of boxing was overlooked when the decision to reduce national titles to 10 rounds was taken.

I think we all agree the strength of the Australian national linear title is the most critical element of the return of boxing to its former glory. The national title is a sacred thing with deep history and it should not be positioned as lesser. Particularly when until 1985, national titles were contested over 15 rounds and a lot of people still yearn for the real "championship rounds 13-15".

For a sport to mainstream it has to be clearly and concisely understood by the sea of casual fans that it needs to convert. Trying to explain to a casual that the Australian belt is more important than the WBA Pan African or WBO Latino or the WBF or IBO or IBU and various Pan Pacifics when one belt is contested over 10 rounds and the rest of the belts are over 12 rounds is virtually impossible. And if you explain the health argument to them it makes our national title fighters look like they are mollycoddled and can't hack regional title conditions. Like you are still on your L Plates, as one of my eager to understand mates concluded.

If the world boxing bodies agree to transition all title fights from 12 to 10 rounds like they once moved in unison from 15 to 12 rounds, then we should sign up immediately. Being 10 rounds not 12 rounds does not get us any brownie points with the AMA. They hate all forms of it from headgeared amateurs to sparring. Nothing stacks up and I see no political gain from 10 round title fights.

I think it should be repealed immediately and put down to an idea with great intentions but it is unquestionably damaging our sport while the world standard for national titles remains 12 rounds.