For Americans: Rate the belts!

as far as these trinkets are concerned i'd say they go in this order WBC WBA IBF USBA NABF IBA and somewhere in the bowels of the shit tank of boxing is the WBO...................

I've always been partial to the IBO. But really, it's about personal preference.

I know many fans don't think highly about any of the belts, but if you have to rate them.......WBA, WBC, IBF and WBO. Just curious as a European... 1st WBC 2nd IBF 3rd WBA 4th WBO If I had to rate them......IBF is the most crooked I think personally but has been around a long time and holds some prestige because of that.

I dont belive any belt, including the famous RING belt is worth anything. The champions make the belts ans each belt has had great fighters that have made the belts the definitive belt in weight classes and each belt has had an undeserving title holder maskarading as the champ of the weight class. You really cant hold one above another.

The easiest thing to rank is to put the WBO fourth, which in terms of historic prestige is absolutely correct. However, I feel like it is the organization that tries the most to actually be good for boxing, so I prefer them to at least the IBF and WBA. The WBC generally seem to be all right too. Whenever theres a WBA or IBF champion in the ring though I always feel like the fight has been predecided. I hate them, particularly the WBA. So, I guess I'd go WBC, WBO, IBF, WBA in that order with a big drop in between WBO and IBF.

Good point - the WBO traditionally had weak champions (many based in the UK) - but in recent years they've done well. And someone mentioned Briggs. He might be a weak champion, but I like the way the WBO has got the fights on - Brewster-sergei and the sergei-Briggs. Not the travesties that the WBA and Valuev served up or the WBC nonsense over the last 3 years.

The WBC & WBO have had the the best champions in the last 5 years.

As has been said, the ring champ is the only champ as far as i've concerned. For example. calzaghe is the 168 champ, and Kessler is the no.1 contender. Likewise Wlad will not be HW champ until he fights the winner of Peter vs Maskaev vs Vitaly. Although how Peter got to be no.2 is beyond me. He might be the second best out there but he doesn't deserve to be ranked 2 yet.

1st - WBC (most prestigious, for the most part, has the better title holders) 2nd - WBA 3rd - IBF 4th - WBO

WBC and ring magazine are the biggest titles, 1.WBC/Ring Magazine Title, 2.WBA, 3.IBF, 4.WBO, You can have the WBA and IBF in any order, Theese are the biggest titles in the sport.

Obviously the Ring Belt is the most important. Other than that, id say it goes WBC WBA WBO IBF.

i dont care very much about the belts. see pacquiao, he doesnt have any of the four belts but he is considered the super featherweight champion by a lot of people. but it seems that the wba and wbc are the most prestigious one, then ibf and finally wbo. but i would like to there be more belt unifications out there.....at least this saturday there is one =D.

THE RING is the only belts that means anything, all others are literally shit.

What Soprano said; "the fighter makes the belt" has almost become a cliche here, and tightly so.

WBC WBO WBA IBF Not real popular among Americans to place the WBO belt up there, but I feel lit has grown in prestige in the last 5 or so years. IBO = Next Big Thing. IBF = Most corrupt organization out there, I'd say WBO is the weakest one of all... and my award for most currupt organization goes to Jose Sulliman --> WBC

I know many fans don't think highly about any of the belts, but if you have to rate them.......WBA, WBC, IBF and WBO. Just curious as a European... I don't rate the belts, I rate the title holders. Lets say Wlad Klitschko is rated as a #1 HW in the world, him being an IBF title holder doesn't mean anything.. he would have been rated at #1 with a WBO belt as well... and Yes, WBO is crappiest one of all. Belts mean shit!

This Is Sparta

i rate them in the order you put them,im not american though