This one is for ALL the marbles...

Shove your dictionary up your ass.

 

It is intresting but some of it is not true, or spun...

The National Sporting Club was formed by Lord Lonsdale to regulate English boxing in 1891

The British Boxing Board of Control was formed in 1930ish and continues to regulate British boxing to this day

The IBU (International Boxing Union) was formed in Paris in 1911, it was replaced in 1946 by the European Boxing Union (EBU), which is still going today.

In the USA, Richard K. Fox publisher of the Police Gazzette issued championship belts in the late 1880's.

With the Walker Law in 1920, boxing became legal in New York under New York State Athletic Commission (NYSAC).

New York quickly became the centre of the boxing world as the sport expanded. In 1921, 15 State Athletic Commissions formed the National Boxing Association (NBA). Although formed in New York, the NBA did not have NYSAC as one of its memebers. This in effect led to both organizations crowning different champions.

Boxing was getting bigger and bigger globaly which led to the NBA changing its name to the World Boxing Association in 1962, with members from Africa, South America and Asia joining. But because each state in America still had a vote, the WBA was still basically an American organization.

Because of the American domination George Parnassus formed the World Boxing Council (WBC) in 1963. The WBC consisted of 11 countries placed into continental federations each with two votes each.

In 1976 a Pepe Cordedo fronted a 'coup' to the WBA which ended its control by the USA.

In 1983 Bob Lee lost a battle to become President of the WBA, and left the WBA to form the International Boxing Federation (IBF)

Latrn American countries then helped form the World Boxing Organization (WBO) in 1987, in another internal row in the WBA.

 

Ohhh That feels rather good:good

 

Very interesting. You have answered one question I have always had regarding these bodies - why people gave the WBC greater legitimacy than some of the others. I knew it was older - I'm old enough to remember when the IBF split occurred, let alone the WBO and the others. I knew the WBC was older, because I remember when there was JUST the WBA and WBC. And I knew of the earlier NBA/NYSAC fracture, although didn't know all the details. What I didn't know at all was that the WBC incorporated those other entities when it split. Essentially, I thought it was simply another IBF or WBO - another split off faction of the WBA.

I must say that your arguments are interesting, and seem to be based on a solid, and well-thought out rationale. To me, this would argue, then, for a RE-UNIFICATION of the WBA and WBC to create one title. If this title, because of its historic lineage was then accorded the greater legitimacy it therefore would deserve, perhaps this would lead to a corresponding dimmution in the "prestige" of the IBF and WBO.

I've always been a big proponent of the Ring belt, because it created, at least, some clarity out of this chaos. But if it could be achieved, your thesis - extended to its logical conclusion of re-unification - is a much better solution. Thanks for the info!:good

 

You are doing what you believe you are supposed on a forum, you spin it to try and get your point across.

Personally I do not mind if anyone agree's or disagree's with me, I am here to debate.

I put information in my threads for which people can make their own mind up.

You have polarized your views, because you think there is something to win or lose, you do not get it. Just because you know that two add two is four, unless you know the meaning of it, you will not know what four add four is.

No one in boxing knows everything, but if you open your mind up to different opinions you will learn a lot more. You do not need to be in alpha male mode.

 

Your use of the word Lineage is wrong, that is all you got to change, and just say something like achillesthegreat champions, and I would completely agree with you.

It is your narcissism in this debate that flaws your arguments...

 

It does not make sense...

You cannot make things up as you go along.

Lineage finished in boxing in 2001 with Girard.

The way to recognize a World Champion is to call him a World champion, not a lineage champion, not an alphabet champion, not a title holder...

It is not rocket science in that sense, but who is a World Champion and who is not, indeed who was and who was not, may never be definitively answered, because it is purely personal opinion.

At least I am half way there by calling Joe Calzaghe THE World Champion, calling Mr Kessler a Lineage Champion, kind is a double zero.

 

I agree with TBooze, achilles' definition of lineage is subjective, and he is trying to pass it off as something that is widely accepted. Unfortunately I do not know of a single boxing historian--not one--who uses a WBA/WBC unification as the exclusive definition of crowning a new linear champ in the modern era of boxing.

Further, as was stated, the WBC hardly conglomerated all the bodies recognizing champions at the time into itself; hence choosing it as one of two necessary elements (WBA/WBC) as opposed to 3 (WBC/WBA/IBF) or more (IBU, IBO--these did not splinter off from the WBC/WBA) is completely arbitrary.

Most historians whose work I've read opt for a consensus rating system: if there is a clear #1 in a division and he faces the clear #2, a new champion is then crowned. If there is no general consensus in the ratings (in modern times, these would include Ring, Boxing Monthly, Fightnews, BTalk, and a host of other ratings submitted by reknown boxing publications), it may take more than one fight to determine who the champion of the world really is.