The WBC is no longer more 'prestigious' than the rest.....

Before starting, this isn't a IBF/WBA/IBO/WBO > WBC.....it's just to point out that the WBC's terrible decision making is 'no better' than the other bodies.

Stevenson holding a belt hostage for 5 years......
Defending Canelo for failed tests, as it's ok because he 'passed a third test'.
Making a final eliminator Breazeale v Molina, then claim 'it isn't a final eliminator' when questioned by media, then claim the winner is mandatory because of that fight just months later.

And just look at the Stevenson situation re-emerging by mandating such terrible opposition for Wilder.


Current ages of his past 10 opponents. (Wilder is 32)

39 - Ortiz
39 - Stiverne
36 - Washington
39 - Arreola
29 - Szpilka
37 - Duhaupas
36 - Molina
41 - Gavern
37 - Scott
39 - Firtha

Of course, figures are nothing without context......

These are not fights 1-20 in Wilder's career, where you'd expect older, multiple loss, 'fodder' basically....These are fights 30-40!

Every opponent is 4-8 years older with the exception of Szpilka.
Every opponent had losses, with the exception of Washington and Ortiz.
Not one had ever beat or shared the ring with any of the current HW top 10.


Stevenson/Wilder/Canelo + Lies about Final eliminators.....
The WBC really needs to be held accountable for most of this nonsense.

 

Shouldn't have taken this long for ya to notice, but yeah...

 

I'm relatively new to the sport....

Been more 'hardcore' than 'casual' for the past 5-6 years....

So it hasn't taken me 'long', and it's clear that an acceptance has been made by previous generations of fans, who haven't done anything about it.

 

That's a serious list of fossils.

 

What would you have fans do?

Write letters? Stop watching?

You just have to largely ignore the belts. Sure, they're there. But you just have to judge the fighters for what they've done against who, regardless of where an ABC org decided to rank them.

I'm not sure why people who complain about the ABC belts seem to give them the value that empowers them.

 

But the organisations rankings play a huge part in what we see.

Imagine if Wilder was forced to fight Povetkin, and the russian won....

We could've seen absolute wars between Povetkin/Ortiz/Whyte/Parker/Miller.



But instead we get Stiverne ll and Washington ffs.

 

Totally agree. That's why we shouldn't care about the belts one bit. Because if to roll with your example of Wilder didn't care about the belt and was interested in putting on the best fights, he would have tossed the belt to the wind and fought Povetkin, earning mass respect and credit for doing so (sort of a bad example because this fight was signed on to happen twice; but nonetheless). Instead he follows the belts' orders (who are actually just following Wilders' managers/promoters' orders) and we get poor, low risk/low reward fights... There are endless examples of this. Champions can just cite wanting to or having to fight their upcoming mandatory and boom, look at all those sultry and deserving potential matchups at the top of the ABC rankings!

 

I still care somewhat about the belts and think that some are more presigious than others, the WBC being one of them. That said, I agree with the OP. The WBC has made some crappy decisions and can no longer be considered "the" premier belt. It's one of the better ones, that's all.

 

But Wilder has chosen those fights....So i don't understand your point?

Joshua would be a better example.

He wants all the belts + the biggest fights.....

Klitschko/Parker/Wilder + Fury/Whyte ll etc.


Wilder's mandatories have been against dreadful opposition, and his voluntaries have been just as poor.

 

It would be great if Joshua could pull that off. But he is certain to have undeserving opponents in the mix in order to hold onto those worthless paper belts. IE Golovkin vs. Wade. Horrible fight. Golovkin did it because the title org demanded so. He fought and beat Wade. BUT he could have fought and beaten someone much better than Wade instead, thus improving his legacy more, if he didn't care about paper belts and the silly folks and decisions which dictate them.

 

'Undisputed' is a legacy improver though imo.

If both Joshua/Wilder retired tomorrow, Joshua's legacy would be greater than Wilder's, due to the standard of opposition + belts.

 

The WBC has a history of allowing their champions to not face the best.

Before Wilder you had Vitali Klitschko and his opponents were also poor in comparison to those that Wlad was facing.

 

But why?
It makes no sense?

Like the Stevenson example...How much potential $$$ have they lost from better fights?

 

I've thought this for quite some while to be honest, well before any of the things mentioned in this thread. When Mauricio Sulaiman took over from his father it looked like the WBC might be headed back in a positive direction as he mandated some good fights and made some positive decisions but that seems to have been a smoke screen, he's just as dirty as his father.

The WBC is no better than the WBA, both have their silver and regular belts which just diminish the standing of both organisations. Having either the regular or silver versions of their world titles clearly does nothing for that fighter. It doesn't guarantee the holder a shot at the genuine title holder, we've seen that with the WBA and we are seeing that with the silver title with Whyte.

I will add that Breazeale/Molina was a final eliminator for the WBC title, the WBC stated that clearly before the fight. It was originally meant to be Breazeale/Stiverne, but Ortiz popped dirty for PED's and so Stiverne fought Wilder instead, while Breazeale for some reason fought Molina who was not even top 10 at the time and still isn't. Hearn says, Sulaiman told him it wasn't a final eliminator just an eliminator but Sulaiman was clearly lying.

Hearn is appealing their decision but he won't win. He should realise he can't expect a fair decision from the WBC and Haymon will have far more influence with the WBC. Maybe when Hearn makes this big announcement and if it is a big streaming deal with Netflix or Amazon then he will eventually have the clout to push the WBC around but until then he will always get obstructed by the WBC. Suffice to say even if Whyte beats Ortiz we can expect road blocks in place to ensure Whyte doesn't get his shot. Wilder didn't have to face a mandatory for almost 2 years and we can expect a similar situation should Whyte become mandatory.