All, A similar thread on the General Forum the other day got me thinking. I know we criticise sanctioning bodies/belts and also some people don't rate altogether. Personally, I think a legitimate ABC belt still add's to a fight. I can appreciate when you get to a Pacquiao or Mayweather level you don't need the appeal of a belt to bring the fans, but even in Pac's case, obviously he still likes fighting for them. My question, which sanctioning body do you rate the highest? I know it's easy to say the 'Ring Magazine' belt, but that's a whole other criteria and in this day and age, very hard to make work from a standout performer in each division, i.e. getting the No.1 and No.2 to square off. Obviously it's the prestige belt first and foremost, but has big challenges making it happen. For ABC's, I personally rate the IBF title the highest. It doesn't have interims, regular, super, super unified, silver, diamond, champion in recess, emeritus and all the other bull**** names the WBC, WBA and WBO have. The IBF have a champion who has to dance with his mandatory challenger once every nine months or be stripped. He can fight volunatries in between against Top 15 rated contenders. Pretty simple and it works. The IBF strip champions if they don't defend so they back their stance. I suppose second I'd take the WBC simply because of history. The WBO would be third for mine with the WBA a long, long last (3 champions to a division - ****ing please!) Please don't throw up stupid **** such as the IBO, WBF, WBU, IBC, etc, etc, etc! Waste of discussion there! Any thoughts fella's?
This content is protected First and foremost. The rest are taken with a grain of salt. In terms of prestige, it's the WBC for mine. That being said, all the Diamond belts etc a crap. If you had this discussion 20 years ago, the WBO would be listed along with the WBF, WBU, IBC etc (no that's not another sanctioning body, it's short for etcetera). The IBF is predominantly on the right path except for leaving the #1 and #2 spots open for box offs, which obviously bring in sanctioning fees. I can't think of a time where the boxing belts have been as worthless as they are now.
Definately agree with your top 3, and in that order. Im dissapointed in the WBO with it interim champs and regional iterims- ****ing ridiculous. The IBF have established themselves pretty well now. The number of regional belts do remain ridiculous, yet that's fair enough, as long as interim and regular titles are ignored. These belts deserve absolutely zilch recognition. I feel sorry for the likes of Kats fighting with **** attached to the bouts. The WBC are just a corrupt bunch of ****s, although the history is there... I actually think history has changed them very little. Better the devil you know. The WBA has the longest history of the lot. The current state of it sad.
WBO - Agree Bobby, too many regional belts and also too many interims for the regional belts. WBC - Prestige, but **** they make the rules up as they go and the Mexican's (yes, yes I know being a Mexican organisation) get the absolute gun run at all titles. WBA - Oldest, but has just become a farce, it really has. All sanctioning bodies, IBF included, I forgot to mention in first post - **** off your World Youth Titles - This content is protected
What a simplistic circle, same **** different day...similar to fish swimming circles sniffing each other ..... go the ring :good Lets hope 2011 adds something new to the boxing world.
Lets hope 2011 adds something new to the boxing world. Like another sanctioning body? :-D Something new, something different....