The Big Four

[Willie Pep 229]

I was wondering, if we took and evaluated the four major sanctioning bodies, WBA, WBC, IBF, and WBO between the period 1980 and 2010, would any one of the sanctioning bodies stand out as having recognized a higher caliber of champion than the other three?

At first blush one might think the WBA which was best established going into 1980 would be that body, but then on the other hand the WBC (without any statistical support) seems to my mind to have been part of many more major fights.

I wonder what a thorough evaluation would reveal.

[HOUDINI563]

What is important is not the higher caliber of champion but who is the rightful champion. Might be interesting to determine both. Which had the higher caliber of champions AND which followed the true lineage the closest.

[aboutfkntime]

I was wondering, if we took and evaluated the four major sanctioning bodies, WBA, WBC, IBF, and WBO between the period 1980 and 2010, would any one of the sanctioning bodies stand out as having recognized a higher caliber of champion than the other three?

At first blush one might think the WBA which was best established going into 1980 would be that body, but then on the other hand the WBC (without any statistical support) seems to my mind to have been part of many more major fights.

I wonder what a thorough evaluation would reveal.

no.... and this subject has been done to death

the point is, who cares about being... " more-correct "... ?

you are either definitively correct... or you are no better than anyone else

FACT: none of the sanctioning bodies are definitive

FACT: since the advent of the 2nd sanctioning body... none of the sanctioning bodies have EVER been definitive

who cares if someone gets it right " some " of the time... and the "some of the time" that they get it right... happens to be a little more often than somebody else... because, FACT: none of them are definitive

and it is flawed logic to rank one sanctioning body above the other because (insert reason here)... when I can immediately point to glaring errors in their ranking...

lets not support any system that is not 100% definitive

the responsibility is on fans to know whats up... they should not need a roadmap, let alone 4 flawed roadmaps from 4 corrupt ABC organisations

[HOUDINI563]

I support none of them. Really not a question of “supporting”.

I do think it would be a fun exercise to see which best followed the true lineage since say Holmes and which were way out in left field.

[The Old LefHook]

Could you please put these in some kind of order for me?

Kalahari Bushmen,
Australian aborigines,
Yanomami tribe,
Eskimos

[HOUDINI563]

Actually you are correct. A very quick “look see” reveals each are all over the place. As just one example those in play at that time all stripped Ali’s title back in the 60’s.

It’s a mess.

[Willie Pep 229]

Because you had a prior experience does not mean it is dead, others may still wish to talk about it

Something is either perfect or of no value ?

FACTS or just your opinion?

That's part of the fun, isn't it?

I never support sanctioning bodies, I'm a lineal guy myself.

No they don't, the fan's job is to pay for his ticket and be entertained.


There is nothing definitive except the lineal title . . . but what's wrong in measuring their successes and failures against one another?

Analysis isn't a gateway drug to indoctrination, we'll avoid the 'definitive' rabbit hole; we'll be OK!

[Willie Pep 229]

Could you please put these in some kind of order for me?

Kalahari Bushmen,
Australian aborigines,
Yanomami tribe,
Eskimos

You didn't see the morning paper, we're not saying "Eskimo Pie" anymore, it's now "Inuit Ice."

[aboutfkntime]

Because you had a prior experience does not mean it is dead, others may still wish to talk about it

Something is either perfect or of no value ?

FACTS or just your opinion?

That's part of the fun, isn't it?

I never support sanctioning bodies, I'm a lineal guy myself.

No they don't, the fan's job is to pay for his ticket and be entertained.


There is nothing definitive except the lineal title . . . but what's wrong in measuring their successes and failures against one another?

Analysis isn't a gateway drug to indoctrination, we'll avoid the 'definitive' rabbit hole; we'll be OK!

nah, the lineal title is not definitive... it is a triangle theory

The Ring ranked Canelo the #1 middleweight on the planet... despite the fact that he had never weighed more than 155... and despite the fact that he had never faced a middleweight opponent... simply because of lineage

at the exact same time, The Ring ranked Adonis Stevenson ahead of Kovalev... again, simply because of lineage

the fans are either... 1) capable of deciding who the real champion is in every division... or... 2) they are not capable...

if they are not capable... then handing them a flawed roadmap will not help... that is like giving a passer-by directions for a different city

none of them (including The Ring) are definitive... and who cares what % each of them were correct in the past, when that has no bearing whatsoever on whether they are correct today?

that would be another triangle theory

they have all changed and evolved over recent years... now they are just a spaghetti mess of silly rules, processes, and ideas... all of them are different, none of them are definitive

guys who ignore the ABC's and use knowledge/understanding of the current boxing landscape... will always be in a much better position than paint-by-number fans who need a roadmap

none of the ABC's should be taken too seriously

[QueensburyRules]

- -Overall the fighters seem to have a preference for the artistic value of the green and gold who has these past few years been employing indigenous Indians to create one off specialty belts laden in indigenous symbolism.

Overall the belts have waxed and waned over the importance of who held them.

The WBC awarded post retirement Wlad a special belt in acknowledgement that their champs refused to fight him.

And so on...