Why I hate alphabet crap reason #400,002,654

Ridiculous

 

MD means 'Majority Decision'. Basically, one judge scores it a draw and the others score it a win. There is abosolutely nothing new about MD's:good.

On Boxrec, the cards are always given. Here's some proof of what I am on about:

~ referee: Mickey Vann | judge: Des Bloyd 115-111 | judge: Howard Goldberg 115-111 | judge: Glenn Feldman 113-113 ~

 

That one is a fair enough majority decision, but the one in the OP has two level cards and one with a clear winner.

Therefore it should be a draw, under normal rules.

However, any sanctioning body can make up it's own rules, so long as it sticks to them. I might start my own, not bad work if you can get it, I am sure you agree guys

After all, how is any bout 'sanctioned', other than by the participants sealing the deal?

 

True, but TBooze is on about this:

~ referee: Ian John-Lewis | judge: Des Bloyd 114-114 | judge: Karl Rogers 116-112 | judge: Tony Walker 114-114 ~

~ World Boxing Union bantamweight title ~
~Result is a majority draw under every code except the WBU which awarded a win to Armour~

atsch
​

 

I was looking at III^^^! Didn't see the firstatsch. Well, is this any suprise? WBUseless' pervasive presence in the sport has always been a foul thing.

 

The WBU are a disgrace.

 

Can someone tell me about some of the IBF's **** ups? I know the WBA,WBO and WBC ones but the IBF seem to be fair apart from there mando's which are usually poor

 

They (the IBF) got done for accepting bribes from promoters to move certain fighters up their rankings. This was in the 90's I think.

 

Their ex-president, Bob Lee, got a pretty good amount of jail time for taking money to bump guys up the rankings. I believe the case centered on Fernando Vargas, who got a title fight against Yori Boy Campas despite onlt having 14 fights at the time. They are also extremely strip happy, particularily over the last couple of years. They rarely seem to have 3 consecutive champions these days, constantly having vacant title fights.

 

Didn't know the bribe one

Recently i find it hard to find something they have done wrong besides enforcing mandatories a bit too much. Also i like how they put fights on for rankings spots rather than make up some interim belt.

 

I like the instant replay idea they want to enforce as well. That said, there's only one true world championship out there, IMO: The Ring Belt:deal.

 

Here's a bit about the IBF bribes: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/01/s...-of-corrupt-rankings-by-officials-of-ibf.html

Ring Magazine's not averse to scandal as welll:deal.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,918922,00.html

 

**** me, Ish- you are the Brit forum's encyclopedia!:good That said, it's still the best system out there, IMO. I'd still like there to be computerised Ring rankings, though.

 

I'd like to see the Ring enforce mandatory challengers.

Until it does, for me it is just another joke belt.

The IBF are the #1 at the moment, probably on a par with the WBC. But they need to strengthen the quality of their mandatories and give more credence to major regional titles such as the EBU.

Some of the IBF mandos are joke opponents, the sort of which Warren loves to get for his fighters.