Which organisations have the better champions?

The IBO seem to be making a concerted effort to get the best fighter to hold their belt eg Wlad, Hopkins, Hatton, Darchynian. They've also got their fair share of WBU type champs, but at least they're not stripping people for not taking meaningless mandatories when there are bigger fights to be made. I always thought that the WBC was the most important belt, but now I seriously don't care. Just done a scoring system on the champs from each orgainsation from Bantamweight up and I've got the WBC as best overall, then WBA-WBO level and IBF the worst.

The IBF and WBA are more corrupt than your average latin america dictatorship.

WBC then WBO

Appreciate all comments. But I'm not asking which is the more prestigious title, just who has the better current champions. The WBC may be a joke. but on paper, they seem to have the better champions. I don't know why that is but that's the way it is.

I've always heard that the WBC is the belt that the fighters take most seriously. But I've also heard that the unofficial ring magazine titles are the most legitimate titles in the sport.

The WBO also has the lineal world champion at 175 and #1 contender to Hopkins in Ring. That said, again, all of their ratings have such puzzling junk.

WBO and WBC have belts on more legit champs than anyone but all the ratings suck so I choose none of the above. Good point, the WBC has 5 champions who also have The Ring title for their respective divisions. The WBO has 3.

WBO and WBC have belts on more legit champs than anyone but all the ratings suck so I choose none of the above.

Most knowledgeable boxing fans know that the fighter makes the belt, not the other way around. However, which governing body do you believe has the better boxers out of the current crop of champions? If you need to brush up see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reigning_boxing_champions WBC, then IBF