who the hell cares about the I.B.O belt?

Yep , we know who the true champions are . We don't need a bit of leather and tin/gold plated whatever(depending on how much money the org has got) around a fighters waist to tell us .

 

Toney reffered to the WBC title as 'We Be Crooks' when he was a champ at S.Middleweight . It is only because the WBC were putting him into World title eliminators at Heavyweight that he became more concerned with them than anyone else .

Mayweather spouts rediculous crap about the WBC , he claims he was the true champion at 140 because he beat ****ing Gatti for it . Does anyone else agree with that ?..........which would you rather have won Kostya Tszyu's IBF title(and and the RING , Linear and universally recognized 140 lb championship that comes with it) or Gatti's green strap ? .
Champions make the belt but the other may round .

The WBC let Pongsaklek Wonjongkam go 3 years without a mandatory , and kept him away from Jorge Arce specifically . When he did have to fight a mandatory it was only one of moderate difficulty .

When Bobby Gunn fought Enzo Maccarinelli for the WBO title he was 15th by the WBO but 14th by the WBC .

Fighters are after one belt and one belt in perticular.........the universally recognized one........they don't care if that happens to be a WBC belt because the real champion holds that or the IBO belt because that's what he holds . WBC=WBO=IBF=WBA..........don't be fooled .

 

Absolutely. As soon as someone posts anything to the contary, like listing belts in some sort of order I immediately know they know nothing about boxing and are to be ignored

 

Hatton-Castillo is for the Lineal 140 Championship and the winner will take the Ring belt home.

**** the IBO....and also the WBA, IBF, WBC, WBO, etccccccccccccc.

 

The Ring magazine are great, they represent everthing that is good about boxing, the opinions of these journalists are all that matters.

 

List the WBO, WBA, WBC, IBF top 10 and compare that to Ring's top 10. You will see why the Rings rankings and champions are more than slightly better than the alphabelts.

 

:good

 

Problem with the Ring is that they cannot enforce mandatories, which is a necessity at times in this sport (sadly). A fighter also gains notoriety when he wins one of the major belts, it made some of Hatton's previous opponents (post-Tszyu) "credible", you cannot have it both ways.

 

Apparrently Hatton and Castillo

 

in 98 ibo was a very respected belt and as it was new it was kinda fresh and different from the other belts like the ibf in the 80's...sadly becuase it was not fought over enough and less and less compotition was looking for it.it became a wbu style belt.

shame as the organisation was looking to change the belt situtatuin but became just another ripple in the water.

 

exactly you always see the other champions at the bottom of the rankings or not even on the list

 

Thats why the way I see it, the 4 main belts are just trinkets and the enforcers. The Ring are not bounded by the rules of the 4 main belts that would leave them with ridiculous rankings...they can work together but ultimately, the trinkets enforce the rules, the ring gives the most legitimate rankings.

Take for example the WBC rankings, the so called most legitimate belt. Can someone explain to me why the highly regarded best HW boxer in the world in Wladimir Klitschko is not even in their top 10? How can a belt have realistic ranking when the best in the world isnt even top 10? They enforce the rules and 99% of the time, their champions are top 10 material but end of the day, their rankings is nowhere near as good as Ring...who are not bounded by their rules.

 

i blame the sanctioning bodies for this mess.

he won 2 titles and got stripped almost immediately.

the urango ibf win was a farce.

they stripped him within days.

the sanctioning bodies have cheapened thereselves. atsch

 

Take tennis or snooker, you can be ranked number 1. in the world going into a major tournament, but if you don't win that tournament it doesn't mean anything.