Sanctioning Bodies: Damned if they do, damned if they don't

Not many people are willing to stand up for the sanctioning bodies, but I believe they don't get a fair shake. Sure, they are not perfect and have ****ed up the sport in the past. However, I believe they have taken note of the criticism and are actually trying to help the sport.

Many of their rules are setup to protect against many of the things that fans complain about. For example, many fans complain about fighters getting stripped and how the sanctioning bodies make it difficult to unify.

To combat this, the WBC has purposely vague defense policies which make it harder for a fighter to get stripped and easier for them to unify. The WBA created the regular and super champ in order to make unification easier and allow fighters more leadway without being stripped. Despite both orgs creating rules that address concerns of the fans, they still get criticised. Many people now criticise the WBC for not stripping fighters faster(how ironic). They also get on the WBA for creating another title; calling it a money grab(they ignore how the rule allows fighters to unify easier).

Back to the criticism of the WBC. Many fans feel that their policy allows for favortism, and that they want everyone treated fairly. Fans also complain about pointless rematches. Well, the IBF's policy really does not allow for favortism. They are pretty strict with their rules, and don't pander to big name fighters who engage in pointless rematches. For example, Winky Wright beat Shane Mosley handidly to unfiy all 3 major belts. Instead of fighting his IBF mando, Wright decided to take a pointless remacth in order to line his pockets. The IBF responded by stripping him. Many fans will complain about this; completey ignoring the fact that the IBF is addressing the issue of pointless rematches.

I could go on with more examples, but I think I've made my point. What do you guys think?

 

If you're against the IBF stripping fighters and creating paper champs, that's fine. At the same time though, you should embrace the WBA and WBC's policy which makes it harder for fighters to get stipped and easier for them to unify.

 

If you disagree with any of my points, feel free voice your opinion. IMO, I believe boxing fans simply like to complain. No matter what the sanctioning body does, fans will complain. However, I think it's important to take an objective point of view. Many of the problems in the sport of boxing have to do with the fighters and promoters rather than sanctioning bodies.

 

I understand your complaint, but boxing wasn't perfect before the 60's. Look at how America's racist society completely shut out black HW's in the early part of the century. There was only one belt. So if the champ didn't want to fight you, you were screwed. White fighters felt that blacks didn't dererve to fight for the title and didn't give them opportunities. The only black HW champ in the early part of the 20th centrury, also wasn't too keen on fighting black HW's. As a result, it took decades after Johnson lost his title before another black HW got a chance to fight for the title. Now, did that one belt policy help the sport early part of the 20th century? Was the sport better off without blacks getting an opportunity to fight for the title?

 

No, I don't work for any sanctioning body. However, I'm also not a drone that simply parrots the same rhetoric that they hear on t.v or read on the internet.

 

The point I was making was that there was only one belt, and the champ had the leadway to fight whomever they wanted. This of course, can cause derserving fighters to be shutout from title fights. The example of black HW's being shutout in the early part of the 20th century serves to illustrate this point. There were many other fighters who were undeservedly shutout from fighting for a title for various reasons other than race.

 

1 title per division with consistent ranking systems and strict defense and mandatory rules would be fine. The 1 title per division theory, in itself, is fine. However, many fans complain about defense policies and mandatory challengers. If you don't have these policies in place, deserving fighters will get shutout of the title picture.

 

Actually the sanctioning bodies require that all challengers be ranked in the top 10 of that orginization in order for them to fight for a title. Many mandatory challengers have more than earned their shot. If it weren't for mandos, a guy like Timothy Bradly would never get to fight for a title, let alone win won like he just did.