WBC, WBA or IBF?

WBC and IBF mean something. Again, why? I can’t see why giants such as Boxing News, The Ring, fightnews.com, Boxing Monthly, BoxingScene shouldn’t be able to co-operate in compiling an independent ranking, and which they all stuck by. It would soon be THE only and truthful ranking, to which everyone would be referring. A lot of boxing writers share their time between the magazines/sites, so the connection is already there. The sanction bodies can’t co-operate, that we know for sure. Boxing journalists, if they want to be respected, should be able to!

WBC and IBF mean something. The WBA have lost my respect with their bullshit system and are on a comparable level to the WBO now.

How many Ring champions right now are not the best or at least in the top 1 or 2?

THE WBC IS THE BELT! followed shortly by the WBA its simple. The only reason the WBC and WBA are more highly regarded is because they've been around longer, although that basically means they've been corrupt and sucking the lifeblood out of boxing for longer than the IBF and WBO have. I don't see how any organisation led by Jose Sulaiman can be seen as credible. The WBC lost whatever credibility it had left with the Rocchigiani fiasco. That and when they tried to take away Buster Douglas' title at the behest of Don King. The WBA did likewise when it started creating super champions, unified champions, super unified champions and the like. The Ring has slightly more credibility, but as has been shown in the past it's not immune to corruption and politics either. And it is currently owned by a major boxing promoter. There's also no obligation for the Ring's champions to meet top rated contenders, which means a champion can keep his title indefinitely even when he's clearly not meeting the best in his division.

Note, the sanction bodies pretend the others champions don't exist, and don't rank them. Therefore, usually a mandatory challenger to a true champion isn't the most worthy. We would see a lot more of #1 vs #2 fights if boxers weren't able to shield their careers behind alphabet titles. excellent point. honestly, if the alphabet belts actually bothered to rank the other champions, the belts wouldnt be all that bad. that said, the RING belt can be garbage sometimes too. A lot of the time the guy thats ranked #1 is the real best in the division, and not the champion. and thats throughout boxing history too.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Boxing_Association en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Boxing_Council en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Boxing_Federation en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Boxing_Organization

THE WBC IS THE BELT! followed shortly by the WBA its simple. Explain why?

you mean the one that doesnt require the champ to EVER fight a mandatory challenger?yeah because mandetory's haven't become a total laughing stock at all have they? LHW Mandetory fighters: WBC Silvano Branco, WBA: Vyacheslav Uzelkov IBF:Travoris Cloud. Are you f*cking kidding me? Not single one ranked top 10 by Ring, and i picked the weight at random before looking at who was the challengers because i f*cking knew it would be a joke no matter what division i picked.

did you leave the wbo out on purpose?

THE WBC IS THE BELT! followed shortly by the WBA its simple.

you mean the one that doesnt require the champ to EVER fight a mandatory challenger? Note, the sanction bodies pretend the others champions don't exist, and don't rank them. Therefore, usually a mandatory challenger to a true champion isn't the most worthy. We would see a lot more of #1 vs #2 fights if boxers weren't able to shield their careers behind alphabet titles.

Most prestigious: The Ring belt! you mean the one that doesnt require the champ to EVER fight a mandatory challenger?

Most prestigious: The Ring belt!