I remember when you had a belt meant you were the champ sanctioned by particular organization. Now you have champions that don't defend their belts against their contenders, diamond belts, silver belts, super champions, interim champions, and emeritus champions. Four main sanctioning bodies and with WBC and the WBA multiple title holders per a weight class. I think the IBF keeps it real the most because they hold you accountable to your mandatories. If you won't defend it they'll strip you and let the contenders fight for the vancant belt. I'll post a poll with the four main bodies that I pay the most attention to.
These days? none of them. They don't mean **** and titles have completely lost their meaning in boxing.
The IBO, while not really a proper title, are actually much better when it comes to rules compared to the big four.
The EBU title has the best champions, and designates the "champ" in each division from my perspective.
ibf is the best of the worst atleast they only haave one champ per division none of this super or interim bull****
I dont even blame the IBF and WBO too much.. at least they don´t throw five world title belts around in each weight class and actually enforce mandatory spots. They can´t list all these wbc/wba super doper interim bronze emeritus world champions in their rankings so since nearly every top5-10 fighter got his own paper belt these days they sometimes have to appoint bums to take part in eliminator bouts etc but i feel these orgs at least try a bit too keep it real
