which 'world title' means has the least credibility?

Creating a super champ is as good as an idea as tickling Mike Tyson's balls.

 

The WBO

 

The champion gives the belt esteem, not the other way around.

I think pretty soon we'll be able to do without belts. I can't believe no big website has filled that gap yet. Just produce a big ol' ranking of every fighter out there. Top 50 in every weight.

 

The Superchamp title allows the WBA to be unified to other belts.

For example, if a fighter unifies the WBA and WBC, then he would normally have to fight 2 mandatories every 9 months to avoid being stripped, which is practically impossible. With the WBA superchamp title, the unified champ does not need to fight his WBA mandatory.

However the WBA still needs to have a champ fighting mandatories orelse its entire ranking system becomes absolete, hence they have a regular WBA champ.

I don't know if i explained it well :?

 

You have.:good

(What's wrong with the WBA and WBC Champ fightin 2 mandatories every 9 months? 9 months is sufficient time to fight 2 fights...and he would only face the best, rather than picked show ponies...)

 

2 mandatories every 9 months is very unrealistic and unfair to the champ. Sometimes the big money fights and the fights that are served to build a fanbase are not mandatories. You still have to make it so that it is a financial advantage for the fighters to chase the belts orelse they will simply disregard them.

Also, what if he has unified all 4 belts? 4 mandatories every 9 months?

 

Now that is a problem...I guess after unifying he should give up the belts and only defend the Ring belt against the best in the division at the time...what is wrong with that?

 

I think it changes and depends how good their actual champs are and how many of their champs are paper champs.Both the WBA and especially the IBF have the worst champs at the moment compared to the other belts.I dont think any of the belts are prestigous anymore and it seems to get worse every year

 

i voted the IBF.

my reasoning .

the IBF do not rank any fighter as a mandatory for the champion unless you pay them to do so.

so for example say a fighter like judah , went out and beat margarito/hatton/mosely/odlh/ the whole IBF top 18 ranked fighters according to ibf rules he is still not good enough to fight there champ unless he pays them sanctioning fees to be ranked in there 1 or 2 position.

 

What do those sanctioning fees amount to, sean? Do you know? Is it not like some kind of members' fee?

 

not small by any means for big fights with a lot of money at stake ibf fees can ammount to huge money.

i think they take a percentage of the total purse.

but in a big fight holyfield v holyfield ( i just looked it up) the ibf charged $300,000

 

That is a hell of a lot...how do they justify those fees? It's not like they use it to popularise the sport or anything....do they?

 

they do not attempt to justify the fees , they hold fighters to ransom.

pay the fees or you are not fighting for our IBF belt or defending our belt and will will strip you or not rank you.

nope they do nothing to promote our sport at all.

 

I agree. However, the least sought after title is the WBO.

 

That is bad! With the IBF you have to dish out the cash; with the WBO, you have to get your promoter to get the tv companies AND the WBO rankings committee to like you...hmmm...hard to pick which is worse in my opinion...but I would go with the WBO...at least with the IBF, if you are prepared to give a big away a big chunk of your purse and are deserving, you will get your shot!