Which meaningless belt do you prefer?

I'd take the IBO over any of them really. Not in terms of prestige, but they're just MUCH less corrupt than any of the other sanctioning bodies, and their rankings usually look halfway decent.

 

If you actually look at their rankings, they're miles better than the rankings by the WBC, WBA, IBF and WBO. Generally much better than Boxrec's as well, FWIW.

 

You not the first person to say good things about the IBO so it looks like with a few respectable IBO belt holders around this could soon well be the 5th major title.

 

We will never be corrupt. The IBO is totally about honesty, we are getting better all the time, we are as strict as possible with our champions and with who we allow them to defend against.

 

Try looking at our ratings. They are basically calculated by linear wins. All computer ratings will have different formulas. The IBO ratings are calculated independently without bias the only opinion that comes in to the ratings is which division a boxer will appear. They are designed to be fair, you may see an odd fighter that you see out of position, but in the main they are pretty sound.

 

Isn't it true that the IBO do not enforce mandatory defences the way the others do which tend to be against opponents way out of their depth?

 

Thanks Joe for the education. Do you work for the IBO?

 

We dont have mandated challengers, a lot of IBO fights do involve the better fighters meeting each other, shortly Wlad will defend, Chad Dawson will fight Tarver and Hatton will fight Pacquaio. The better champions decide who they want to fight, we cant make them, they will vacate, that is almost the way with the other 4 sanctioning bodies. We have a policy on who can fight for titles and who cant, you would never see a Peter Okello fighting for an IBO title, or some of the WBA challengers. We have a top 35 policy, which may sound very wide, but when you accept that many fighters are other champions or involved in eliminators a lot of fighters whilst being in the top 35 are ineligible. Our biggest problem getting better challengers are often at the lighter weights.

 

OK, cheers, good stuff.

 

Taylex-Yes I do the ratings. I can absolutely guarentee you everyone working for the IBO has a real committment to making progress in cleaning up the sport. We want your support if possible, our only crime is we have come along 5th, instead of 20 or 3 years ago.

 

You must be pleased by the poll results in this thread showing that IBO has allot of respect. Could a sanctioning body buy and take over another one? A merger of this sort would go a long way to simplifying the sport.

 

Wbc

 

You saying that the WBC is meaningless ?

 

The thing is though,when it was just the WBA/WBC around,it was a ******* for a Euro to get a title shot;For the most part it was Yank vs Yank for those belts,worthy or not.
With the advent of the IBF,WBO etc,non Americans can get opportunities too,without the British/Commonwealth/European Merry go round.
Which traditionalists support,but Americans dont have to do the USBA/NABF bollocks.They just go for the World if they want to.

 

IBO, its run by a computer and has the lineal feel to it.