Rank the Titles

From my point of view DSS the last couple of rounds proved the difference between true champion and contender. Imagine how the real oldies (read: Allan Moore haha!!) feel: It was always thought that The Championship Rounds were 11-15! I could not imagine Lonsdale Belts being contested over 10 can you?

 

very true BF - people will start to talk. Now when are you gunna buy me that ****ing car!?

 

As much as boxing orgs are all about beating their own drums and raking in cash along the way ( it's hard to separate the lot of them in that regard), I find the IBO's criteria for sanctioning title fights quite unique and more so, flawed.

Look at two lightweights Juan and Julio Diaz...

Diaz comes off a loss to Campbell and straight away fights for a vacant IBO belt when he is ranked #3. Katsidis was #21 or something but that's another matter...they were both ranked inside the top 35 so they meet the criteria. Not real stringent and hard for a fan to follow.

Phil, you have been a staunch advocate for the computer generated ranking systems which the IBO uses, but who really cares what the rankings are if it doesn't guarantee a shot at the title? You guys don't seem to be too fussed about them...

Where is the benefit of being ranked #1, when guys #3 and #21 come off losses to fight for the vacant belt? How can I not think that merit and reward in the ranking system means little if the IBO can pick and choose who they will sanction based on money and exposure?

Now campare that to Julio Diaz and the IBF.

Julio losses his belt to Juan Diaz and IBF president Lindsay Tucker says he cannot even fight an eliminator without first registering a win. He fights David Torres and gets the win.

Now Julio/Ganoy has been sanctioned as an IBF #2 elimination fight where the winner earns a fight against the #1 guy. A logical progression of climbing the ladder, and no one is getting skipped because only a top 15 rated fighter can fight an eliminator. And you must get the #2 position before #1.

Sure, their are sanctioning fees with both eliminators but hey, no one is getting skipped and the champion must fight the #1 guy within 3 months of winning the title. For a fan, that's a heck of lot easier to follow and far more logical than simply having a melting pot of 35 fighters, where ANY of them can fight for a title if the IBO agrees to it.

 

I hear you so clearly Phil. Its unAustralian to have a sub standard national title. I don't know if there is a precedent for it.

And if there is some kick arse medical report out there damning those extra 2 rounds then let every national body read it and agree.

Leveraging all of the intellectual horsepower of the posts in this thread I would like to present this one question to the ANBF.

"Respected members of the ANBF. How can it be that of our Commnowealth brethren the New Zealand, South African and England national belts are held over 12 rounds and our National belts are over 10 rounds. Does that mean they are harder or we are softer"

 

Sorry, Perfect Jet I have been meaning to reply to this but been busy with other things. You seem to love harping on about Diaz V Katsidis don't you? I'll explain it a little further and hopefully this time you understand. You bemoan the fact that #1 did not fight for it - who is number 1 mate? The IBO rank ALL fighters in the division including other champions, as they must be acknowledged for their accomplishments. We had initially been approached by Diaz before he lost to Nate Campbell, he came back to us and the fight was looked at and approved, because his opponent was ranked high enough to be sanctioned. because the top-35 is often far more competitive than other organisations because we do rate the other champions to keep them completely objective and pure in their original intention.

As to your comments on the IBF and Ganoy (No wonder you are so pro-IBF at the moment! ). What right does a sanctioning body have to play match-maker? You are correct though about all those extra juicy sanctioning fees they are collecting along the way! Up until the "wonderful" idea of these paid eliminators, fighters were just ranked 1-15 based on their merits (usually) and who they had fought (usually), now ratings come out with spots "vacant" simply so extra cash can be made along the way! I have no problem with final eliminators where two very deserving fighters fight off for the right to fight the champ - fair enough, but just milking it for all it is worth is ludicrous. The Top-100 is based soley on results v quality of opposition, there is no need for eliminators if fighters have got the spot they have earnt allready. May I remind you that Tommy Browne was not even Top-100 when he fought Injin Chi for the WBC title. Who had he really defeated to a) earn the right to be there and b) prepare him for a chance of actually winning the fight?

 

yeh i was a bit daft in some of my examples ..but my overall point was most big name fights recently are being thrown an added sweetner by adding an IBO World title ....

I think everyone makes valid points though ..and as i said in my earlier post i think the IBO will become stronger by having some of the big names holding there belts ...

and i think every boxing fan would love to see one world title back ..or even 3..but we are never going back there ppl coz its all about the $$$$$ , and it wouldnt surprise if we get a few more bobbing up ..

and i no this will open a can of worms but ...perhaps one day we may even see another entity in australian boxing ..all it needs is someone with a bit of cash ....someone to say ...ok cool willy u have a mandatory with zappa ( for example ) ..would be good to see ...a bit pie in the sky i no...