the BIG four.

how does, or can the the ibo need to progress though to become a 'recognised' major belt ? It's a very informal process. It just comes down to public and and media perceptions. Big names choosing to go after a belt and making the effort to protect it will give any belt the credibility to become recognised worldwide. Once this happens in enough weight classes the organisation itself will become recognised worldwide and by the International Boxing Hall of Fame, which currently only recognises the WBC/WBA/IBF and not the WBO incidently. A good example is in the 1980's when Larry Holmes chose to relinquish his WBC title in order to accept an protect the IBF belt. This established the IBF as the "third" sanctioning body, and a legitimate organization. Hope this helps somewhat.

how does, or can the the ibo need to progress though to become a 'recognised' major belt ?

can some one please sum up the pro's (if any) and cons for the big 4 belts as precisely and concisely as possible please.CONS: If you become the undisputed champion you must pay all of the sancioned bodies fees just to defend them. You must pay them to be their champion, the biggest con in professional sports.

Yeah two would definately be enough whilst allowing a little bit of competition to ensure high standards. The IBO can take a long walk off a short pier cos the day we have a 5th major sanctioning body will be a sad,sad,sad day for the sport we all know and love. For me the WBC/WBA are the two to be taken most seriously although obviously this will vary from division to division such as Hatton who became the "man" at 140 despite winning the IBF. I think the IBF & WBO emerged to try and take advantage of the economic opportunities provided by the sport, which are unfortunately always going to exist since the top boxers are never going to fight regularly enough to provide "world championship" entertainment all-year round.

We should debate more these organization. I also think 2 should be enough.

I know there are guys around here who could give you a better comparison, but from i've gathered WBC Pros: Considered by many to be the most prestigious and respected belt. Cons: Corruption, Corruption, Corruption - Don King has in the past had way too much influence over the organisation & Sulaiman(the president) in particular. The saga that nearly ended with them going bankrupt served to further highlight the shady behaviour surrounding their titles. WBA Pros: Has a lot of History and is thus respected highly Cons: Corruption IBF Cons: Corruption, unpredictability and strange decision making since they seem to always be stripping their champions or forcing fights against unworthy challengers. WBO Cons: The youngest and hence least respected and prestigous, seem a bit too chummy with Frank Warren which reduces their credibility. I generally don't see many pros for any of them except for the WBC, and the recurring negative aspects tends to be focused around the consistent allegations of corruption of the biggest 3. Good post. Congrats

I know there are guys around here who could give you a better comparison, but from i've gathered WBC Pros: Considered by many to be the most prestigious and respected belt. Cons: Corruption, Corruption, Corruption - Don King has in the past had way too much influence over the organisation & Sulaiman(the president) in particular. The saga that nearly ended with them going bankrupt served to further highlight the shady behaviour surrounding their titles. WBA Pros: Has a lot of History and is thus respected highly Cons: Corruption IBF Cons: Corruption, unpredictability and strange decision making since they seem to always be stripping their champions or forcing fights against unworthy challengers. WBO Cons: The youngest and hence least respected and prestigous, seem a bit too chummy with Frank Warren which reduces their credibility. I generally don't see many pros for any of them except for th WBC, and recurring negative aspects tends to be focused around the consistent allegations of corruption of the biggest 3. The post basically hits it. I'll add in a couple of cents of my own. WBC: Sulaiman is a disgrace to the sport and is a MAJOR reason the sport has taken a hit in popularity. Their recent handlings stripping champions and forcing the likes of Samuel Peter to jump through more hoops than a circus bear is pathetic; as was Maskaev's defense against Ohkello. WBA: Historically a decent organization that has the idiotic practice of "Super Champions" "Regular Champions" and "Interim Champions" See the cruiserweoght division for that one. Until recently it went Mormeck as SUper, Hill as Regular, and Arslan as Interim. Now that has changed due to Haye and Arslan, but still rediculous. IBF: Not even recognized by most of Asia. The heavyweight mini-tourney to recognize a legitimate mandatory to Wlad is a decent idea as is the mandatory bouts between Cuathen/Powell for the light middleweight, and Flores/Wilson for the cruiserweight are/were good solid fights. But as with ALL sanctioning bodies, need to go WBO: Has been the softest one of the bunch for obvious reasons. Too many dubious bouts in Asia and England for any credibility. In fact the only cred the sanctioning body had is when Lamon Brewster held their version of the heavyweight title. And now that Calzaghe has proven his mettle (it took way too long though) The truth is the sanctioning bodies only create titlist, which are viable contenders to Champions. And I mean Champions by the terms of Linear titles, not paper titles. I would be fine with two bodies that create a little controversy, but four is uncalled for, and the IBO is trying to make it 5, ha.

I know there are guys around here who could give you a better comparison, but from i've gathered WBC Pros: Considered by many to be the most prestigious and respected belt. Cons: Corruption, Corruption, Corruption - Don King has in the past had way too much influence over the organisation & Sulaiman(the president) in particular. The saga that nearly ended with them going bankrupt served to further highlight the shady behaviour surrounding their titles. WBA Pros: Has a lot of History and is thus respected highly Cons: Corruption IBF Cons: Corruption, unpredictability and strange decision making since they seem to always be stripping their champions or forcing fights against unworthy challengers. WBO Cons: The youngest and hence least respected and prestigous, seem a bit too chummy with Frank Warren which reduces their credibility. I generally don't see many pros for any of them except for the WBC, and the recurring negative aspects tends to be focused around the consistent allegations of corruption of the biggest 3.