WBC_WBA_IBF

When his shows are often times promoted by many different companies? He has done shows with DiBella Promotions, Warriors Boxing, Goossen Promotions, GYM Promotions, Mayweather Promotions and many others. Why do Golden Boy and Top Rank shills try and claim otherwise? Because HBO are the masters of propaganda and most boxing fans just buy into whatever the HBO narrative is.

Its very simple. HBO should just announce Haymon fighters are welcome back on HBO. Then all this ends. haymon is trying to edge HBO out of the business. why would he bring his fighters there and bail them out?

What fights need to be made and how can they be made? Someone just needs to unify the WBA and WBC titles. That would give them the lineage of the IBU, NYSAC, NBA & NSC.

If they were enforcing decent mandatories then I would. They lacked common sense in the Fury situation big time. Fury just beat their long reigning champion and had a rematch clause, the ibf just needed to chill and give Fury some time. You are the one lacking common sense. Fury was a WBO mandatory. He was under no obligation whatsoever to grant a rematch. He ***voluntarily*** agreed to make an ***optional*** defense against Klitschko, even though he knew the IBF mandatory was overdue and that he'd have to vacate. They already gave extra time by allowing the Fury fight in the first place.

fans should boycott every PPV. within a year, major fights would no longer be on PPV.

No. What you are talking about is strictly, and blindly, following the rules. Im talking about using common sense, ie, Wlad is a much, much more worthy challenger than Glazkov and they should kicked Glazcov to the curb until the rematch had taken place. If they were strictly and blindly following the rules, Klitschko would have been stripped for facing Fury to begin with as the IBF mandatory was overdue. They made an exception on the condition that the Klitschko-Fury winner immediately face the IBF mandatory. Fury then secretly sold Klitschko a rematch clause and hid it from the IBF. Kicking Glazkov to the curb would result in a lawsuit and the IBF ultimately owing millions of dollars. You're not using common sense at all. You're being manipulated by the way Fury presented the facts publicly, when the truth clearly vindicates the IBF. Fury was a mandatory challenger. There was absolutely no need for a rematch clause. He knew the IBF mandatory was due. He sold Klitschko the rematch clause because he didn't think he was going to win.

ZMM - Thanks for the insight. If the WBA gave up on bothering to have a European champion, that really shows that the WBC's European champion is the only one taken seriously. Does the IBF even bother anymore with their East/West Europe championship? Kafkod - I don't know where you get your information from, but your post is full of inaccuracies. Back before the WBA was the NBA, the EBU was known as the IBU in the early 1900s. The name changed to EBU in the 1940s and they were one of the founders of the WBC in 1960s. I have absolutely no idea why you think the EBU didn't exist yet in the 1960s, especially when it had already existed for *50* years. Where the hell are you getting your info from?!? The WBC was founded by many parties, including the president of Mexico, the NYSAC, the EBU, the BBBofC and others. The president of the BBBofC was elected as the first president of the WBC. The BBBofC and EBU were founders of the WBC and to this day continue to be WBC federations. So if the WBC British title is considered the real British title and the WBC European title is considered the real European title, why wouldn't that make the WBC world title the real world title in the eyes of the fans that recognize the BBBofC and EBU as the real British and European titles? Dirk - I like the logical progression as well and wish we had a similar system here in the US. But what's strange to me is that you guys have one specific recognized British title, one specific recognized European title, but then suddenly when it's time to go for the world title, you guys recognize FOUR world champions, even though the BBBofC and EBU specifically created the WBC.

Techliam - Addiction to the WBC? Not sure that word means what you think it means. I've stated many times that I hope PBC takes over and rids the sport of the sanctioning bodies, including the WBC. The facts don't support your narrative. My logic is very clear. The BBBofC is respected in the UK as the one true British title and the EBU is respected as the one true European title. Those organizations founded the WBC and continue to be WBC continental federations to this day, which is why BBBofC and EBU champions quickly move up the WBC rankings. So my question was simply why did an area that had the discipline to stick to one national champion and one continental champion not also reject multiple world champions? If you don't know the answer, that's fine, but it hardly seems fair to aggressively attack me for asking a straight forward question. Did you have a bad day? Couldn't get laid? Boss gave you a hard time? What's the real issue here? I agree that most European champions don't fight for the WBC title. It's usually the hardest to get your hands on and for whatever reason, Europeans have always been the most eager to seek a "world" title at all costs, even if it's a new organization not recognized by the rest of the world. European promoters single handedly put the WBO on the map. It was the easiest title to win since it was being shunned everywhere else. I'm just wondering why British fans accepted Warren's ruse when at the domestic and continental level, they'd resisted similar nonsense. The BBBofC is not completely separate of the WBC. The WBC is comprised of nine continental federations, two of which are the BBBofC and EBU (which are also founding members). That is what makes it a legitimate "world" championship, the African Boxing Union, Asian Boxing Council, British Boxing Board of Control, Central American Boxing Federation, CIS & Slovenic Boxing Bureau, European Boxing Union, North American Boxing Federation, Oriental & Pacific Boxing Federation and SOuth Continent Boxing Federation all working in tandem to govern the sport locally, and crown world and international champions together. I'm not disputing that the BBBofC allows other titles, simply wondering why fans were so willing to accept minor titles such as the WBO before anybody else. I've never argued that the WBC is the only title that matters. All four titles are generating revenue, so clearly people think they matter. Yet another example of you creating your own facts, which you also hilariously accuse me of. Please oh please tell me one thing I've stated as fact in this discussion that isn't true. Prove or retract. Very easy to throw out baseless accusations, but it makes you a coward if you can't back them up. I'll wait.

lfc19titles - how did fans in the UK view the EBA and how do they view WBO Europe? ted kid - so if the BBBofC controls the lonsdale belt, which dates back to 1909, and the WBC is the world body the BBBofC helped create, why don't british fans view the WBC as the one true recognized world title?

Techliam - So if the WBA was seen as an American title (which it really was until the 1976 coup) and the BBBofC & EBU helped launch the WBC, with the BBBofC president being elected the first WBC president, and the WBC even being formed in the fist place because the WBA was seen as an American title, was the WBC seen as a class above the WBA in the UK from 63-76 or were they always viewed as equals? I don't view the WBA having equal claim as the WBC for a few reasons. Historically, in the pre-WBA/WBC/IBF/WBO era, the most recognized bodies were the IBU, NYSAC, NBA and NSC. The NBA is now the WBA and the IBU (as EBU), NYSAC and NSC (as BBBofC) for the WBC. So the WBC is 3/4 of the classic world championships and the WBA is 1/4. But to take it a step further, the WBA split off into the IBF and WBO. So really, if you unify the WBA/IBF/WBO, you're really still only 25% of the historical world championship, with the WBC maintaining 75% of the lineage. Leaving the WBA with only 8.33%. 75% > 8.33%. It's not even close. That's one of the reasons why I view the WBC as the most historic organization, even if I hate the alphabelt system and want PBC to kill it off. You're incorrect about the BBBofC. It is one of the WBC continental federations and is clearly listed as such here: http://wbcboxing.com/wbceng/images/organization/0.jpg I have claimed that the WBC belt has historically been the most prestigious and lucrative belt in boxing. The facts support that premise. Look at the average purse for a WBC champion vs a non-WBC champion. Look at the percentage of the most lucrative fights in boxing history that were the WBC title vs a non-WBC title. Is there really any dispute that the WBC has done the best job of catering to the biggest stars and making sure their belt is the most lucrative? Yes, legitimate world-class fighters held the WBO title, which helped establish the struggling organization. But it doesn't change the fact that the belt was the easiest to win because it wasn't recognized elsewhere and that Europe basically propped up a new organization so they could have a bunch of world champions. I don't blame Warren for doing it. Don King and Arum had so many of the belts locked up. It allowed Warren to have his own playground and then others followed suit.

in recent years, in non-heavyweight divisions, what other step aside fees have approached anywhere near that amount? and for everyone that says the belts have no value . . . golovkin's purse was 900k when he fought for the interim title and that interim title gained him 800k without having to fight anyone . . .

Only person who seemed to think he was too big for it in recent years was Khan and we all saw how that went :lol1: can you elaborate on that? i'm not very familiar with khan's early career. thanks.

why is no one sold on wilder? HBO propaganda.

Nobody in boxing is on the same page. The sport is riddled with conflicting interests, short sighted business practices and the fans getting used and abused every step of the way. It's simply no way for a proper sport to be run. Like I've said many times, the best thing for the fans would be for an elite boxing league to emerge. For decades, there have been a million excuses for why it would never be possible. But Al Haymon is trying anyway and anybody that wants to see the sport cleaned up should be hoping like hell that he is successful. People always complained about Don King or Bob Arum keeping things in house, but keeping things in house is the only way a power broker can afford to make big fights on a regular basis. The problem with Don and Bob wasn't that they keep things in house, it was that they weren't the only house. If Haymon is successful, a lot of things will change. #1 - PPV will go away. Maybe that's not good for the very top elite fighters, but it's great FOR THE FANS. #2 - While top paydays will decrease, lower paydays will increase as the sport will need notable content year round instead of the average fan tuning in for a few fights a year and ignoring the sport otherwise. #3 - Like UFC, the fights fans want to see will almost always get made. There will be some growing pains along the way. Al is trying to accumulate an army of undefeated and one loss world champions. So there are fights people want made that he's not going to rush into. But longterm, if he can succeed in setting up a UFC like entity, he will end up ridding the sport of sooo many problems that have plagued it for far too long. Disorganized multiple recognized championships, fight being blocked by conflicting networks, fights being blocked by conflicting promoters, etc.

Golovkin got two paydays from Cotto without ever fighting the guy. Over a million total, that's crazy. yet some here still insist the belts are meaningless and have no value . . . GGG made more NOT FIGHTING thanks to the ***INTERIM*** wbc belt than his purse for the fight where he won the belt!

D-Mize - How am I looking into it too much? Seems like a reasonable question. If you're too young or don't know the history of the sport well enough to answer, so be it, but maybe somebody here will know the answer. There are parts of the world that refused to recognize the IBF and WBO. I'm just curious why the UK has had the discipline to ignore multiple British or European champions, but then at the world level, they accept everything. Hell, the WBO would have never gained recognition if it wasn't for UK & EU promoters putting them on the map. Dirk - Didn't Khan win the commonwealth title? So you're saying he skipped the British title and went straight to the commonwealth title? Which is more prestigious?

The IBF winner will give him a shot for the right $$$$ if haymon wins, why would he give haye a shot?

Doesn't matter it's a paper title. Fury is the Champion everyone else is a pretender. This is my biggest problem with boxing multiple champs its laughable. All of the belts are paper titles. Nobody unified the belts after Lennox retired.

You think Wilder is in there? I'm thinking Canelo Cotto Wlad Broner Maybe GGG or Bradley? I mean Wilder is probably very popular at Home Depot because that's where they get most of his opponents but..... :) THREE MILLION PEOPLE in the US alone watched wilder's last fight . . .

Let's rule out Floyd and Manny because they are on a whole different level. Who would you consider the Top 3-5 most recognizable faces in boxing right now? And I mean to the "casual" type fan on the street. Obviously we would know most guys if we saw them on tv. I can't speak for other countries, but here in the US, the five most recognizable fighters among "casual" sports fans, not counting the two you excluded, are Canelo, Cotto, Klitschko, Wilder and GGG, in that order.

Ted - It does seem most are in agreement that the WBC belt looks the best. They've also done the best job of marketing their belt and done the best job of catering to the biggest stars. Also, let's face it, they have the most credible history. New York State Athletic Commission, British Boxing Board of Control, European Boxing Union, etc joining together to create a world body. A world body that has never had a split. Meanwhile, the WBA was formed by far less prestigious entities and on top of it, they've had major defections leading to the creation of the IBF and WBO. So really, you have to unify the WBA, IBF and WBO belts just to gain the recognition a WBA champion had in the 60s. Meanwhile, the WBC keeps chugging along. Nobody has splintered off. They've ruled with an iron fist. Even if the IBF is the least corrupt, the WBC is the clear leader. Most of the modern rules changes have been instituted by the WBC first, then everybody follows suit. They steer the ship. If Fury wanted to put the IBO on the map, he probably could, but it doesn't seem to be his plan. As for the ring belt, once a promoter buys the magazine, the belt loses every ounce of credibility it had. It means nothing now. Which is fine. The fans don't need a magazine to tell them who the lineal champion is. The entire point of the lineal concept is that no authority is needed at all.

I have a feeling the WBC is not allowing Wilder or anybody else who holds their belt to fight a European. The policy I believe is to have it permanently an America's only belt. The facts do not support your premise. Wilder's most recent opponent was . . . EUROPEAN! Not only that, he was a former European Union heavyweight champion and the former heavyweight champion of France. You're building quite the track record of posting false information.

Elroy, you were the one that posted false information. You can mock all you want, but the facts do not support your premise. Nobody is claiming that being heavyweight champion of France means the guy was world class, but the guy was undoubtedly European. So when the MOST RECENT challenger is European, do you realize how silly you look when you act like Europeans are not allowed near the belt? Not to mention Wilder was trying to fight Glazkov . . . ALSO EUROPEAN . . . only for Glazkov to back out. So try not to misdirect your frustration. Nobody forced you to post false information.

Monopolies are never a good thing. If you would not be comfortable with Oscar or Bob "running" boxing, then you cant be comfortable with Al running it either. So you would prefer that the best basketball players be spread across 8 different leagues, with the best teams rarely playing each other? Or 8 tennis tours where the best players rarely play each other? In sports, a monopoly is in the best interest of the fans. Do we really want boxing to become a UFC type entity, with Al playing the role of Dana White? Yes. Definitely. How would it be better for MMA fans if there were 8 mediocre leagues and the top fighters never fought each other?

Haymon prefers for bigger fights to be on network television when it won't conflict with football and for bigger fights to be on premium cable when it will conflict with football. Hardcore fight fans will watch whether it conflicts with a big college football game or not. But the ability to get mainstream sports fan, with a casual boxing interest, to tune in head to head with a big football game is very difficult, not to mention it being much more difficult to garner media attention.

Whats the #1 belt? History has shown the WBC belt to be the most prestigious and lucrative championship BELT in boxing. If someone values the lineal championship over a specific championship BELT, that's cool with me, but you're asking specifically about belts. I don't think there's any doubt out of all of the belts in boxing, the WBC belt adds the most to a fighter's marketability.

It's a magazine OWNED BY A BOXING PROMOTER. It is, by far, the least credible "belt" in boxing. The magazine became completely irrelevant as an independent the second a promoter bought it.

Wilder would rather give the belt back to Stiverne rather than face Povetkin. If this fight happens, I hope that Stiverne does to Wilder what Jacobs did to Quilln. That way, both Quillin and Wilder can sail away on a boat called Irrelevance, never to be heard from again. The facts don't support your premise. You appear to have been manipulated by blatant propaganda. Povetkin has been offered the fight and has turned it down. Never, at any point, has Wilder avoided Povetkin. The WBC ordered negotiations for October. Wilder abided by the order, Povetkin did not.

Why not just fight povetkin.? Always belittling fury and wlad fight, saying he wants them? He should concentrate on his own opponents more. povetkin informed the WBC that he won't be ready until april or may.

I hope Povetkin and Wilder happens very soon. Tired of waiting You must get tired quickly. The fight wasn't even ordered until the Summer and even then it was ordered that negotiations would begin in October. Only reason the fight isn't happening in January is because Povetkin is stalling.