IBF and WBO are just splinter organizations from the WBA that came later. Japanese commission doesn't recognize any newer sanctioning bodies than the WBA and WBC.
WBC and WBA both long predate that. The WBA way back when was the NBA, which started around 1920 and was controlled by 12 state boxing commissions, and was a response to the New York commission getting too powerful. In the 50's, they started letting in other countries, but the US always controlled it. Sometime in the late '70's, they changed the way the power was structured, and since then it's been controlled by central American countries. In any case, the WBA predates the WBC by a good 40 years, just it didn't change its name until later.
But that doesn't make it a good boxing board... If you see the sh*t they pulled the last 10 years, it's one corrupted mess that doesn't give a damn about integrity or the sport itself. The WBC isn't that much better though. I'd say the IBF is the most believable board out there, but also has a lot of flaws.
I'm not saying it's good, I'm just saying that the poster's facts were wrong and that the WBA is the oldest by a good margin. Of the ABCs, I tend to agree with the philosophy of the IBO the most, even though they're not a major. Computer rankings that aren't subject to corruption. Don't enforce all kinds of stupid mandatories. Don't have interim and super titles. Don't prohibit someone from getting a title shot just because they hold another belt. Rankings generally have the best fighters higher and the lesser fighters lower.
I actually agree on that Brickhaus, only the IBO is yet to small to be a major player... At least there rankings are in order.
The IBO should be a major body, the computerised unbiased rankings make sense, but despite that they still have some terrible champions. Wlad at heavy and Pacquiao at 140 are the only "champions" that are the best of their division (well Pac would be no.1 if he went back to 140). They've got a good ranking system, but they're still awarding titles to lowly ranked contenders, and until they start giving titles to the best in the division they'll always be a minor WBF/WBU/IBA organisation.
I have worked in the editorial side of TV and magazine. I still have a lot of friends working in both medium. Yes there are instances where the owners have strong control over their publication - for example Complex magazine, which is owned by Mark Ecko. But probably not the way you think he does. It is not he wakes up and tells the editor to write a certain piece. Ecko's values is reflected through the hiring - he hires people he likes which is more than likely have the same general taste and opinions as he does. But most TV and magazines are NOT like that. It is VERY dangerous to touch the editorial chemistry of an established magazine - be it Vogue, Sports Illustrated, Ring Magazine, etc. These magazines have survived because of their credibility. ODLH is not going to gamble millions of dollars so he can have his writers agree with him. He bought that because like every entrepreneur - he likes the prestige factor. While I am not naive to say that it NEVER happens, I would say 99% of the time it does not. I mean the most important piece they wrote in the last 10 years is favorable to Manny Pacquiao (Fighter of the Decade). That is directly competing with Golden Boy and the alternative to Pac is very credible - PBF (a Golden Boy associate).
Because it's perceived as a minor belt, they can't get bigger names to pay the sanctioning fees a lot of the time - it's a catch-22. Dawson is IBO champ, and as of recently, Pacquiao and Adamek were, so it's not like everyone from the IBO is ragtag.
Where the hell do people get THAT idea?? It's probably the most corrupt of the lot of them, run by that scumbag and Don King toady Jose Suliaman.