The IBF could clean up easily if it added a bit of logic to it's rankings. It doesn't rank dead people, it doesn't offer bias to promoters, it doesn't have interim titles.....
Aaaaaaahhahahaha your pissing yourself!?!Thats legendary!! Those chinese just don't understand the sweet and sour science....you see I havent quite got it like you!!
JMM is also the WBA champ. Senchenko is not the WBA welterweight champ (unless your counting all of the 'regular' champs, in which case Sartison should be in the lowest ranked champs section). Mosley should be ranked the number 1 welterweight.
IBO all the way man. But seriously, they are all pretty meaningless so one doesnt rank higher than another.
The WBC, IBF and WBO are all ******* off spring of the WBA (NBA), so I guess that makes the WAA #1, Irish eyes will be smiling the O'Grady boys did good!
I think they are all basically junk, and only The Ring belt holder is the true champion. But, I've tended to enjoy a few IBF title reigns in recent times (Abraham, Trinidad, Hopkins) so I'd go with them as my personal favourite.
The Ring magazine is owned by Goldenboy so is impartial. The Ring belt means less than the IBO and so do the rankings.
The Ring is proven to of been corrupt in the past. Lineal titles are very crude and naive, and open to many different interpretations. The best way to gain a true world champion, is trust your own judgement, and recognize that.
i really dont get this the ring was corrupt in the past so its no good but the others are corrupt today but they are ok.Which belt has the best champs and the best rankings the ring.They won't rank chavez jr 2nd at jmw like the wbc
Which rankinglist did you take for that, it's not Ring an also not Boxrec's... In any case I would go by 'Ring' as the most reliable source for ratings.
Yeah but due to the fact that don't have mandatories fights like Hatton-Lazcano can take place, with the Ring belt on the line. As Tbooze said, it's best to use your own judgement.