For Americans: Rate the belts!

**Nacho_Analstain** · 04-24-2007, 01:13 PM

i rate them in the order you put them,im not american though

**Guest** · 04-24-2007, 01:16 PM

1. RING Belt
2. WBA, WBC, IBF
3. WBO

Everything else is worthless...

**JAHamilton77** · 04-24-2007, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by langshof

I know many fans don't think highly about any of the belts, but if you have to rate them.......WBA, WBC, IBF and WBO.
Just curious as a European...

WBC
WBO
WBA
IBF

Not real popular among Americans to place the WBO belt up there, but I feel lit has grown in prestige in the last 5 or so years. IBO = Next Big Thing. IBF = Most corrupt organization out there,

**The Raging Bull** · 04-24-2007, 01:17 PM

This Is Sparta

**!! Mr. Soprano** · 04-24-2007, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by langshof

I know many fans don't think highly about any of the belts, but if you have to rate them.......WBA, WBC, IBF and WBO.
Just curious as a European...

I don't rate the belts, I rate the title holders.
Lets say Wlad Klitschko is rated as a #1 HW in the world, him being an IBF title holder doesn't mean anything.. he would have been rated at #1 with a WBO belt as well... and Yes, WBO is crappiest one of all.

Belts mean ****!

**!! Mr. Soprano** · 04-24-2007, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by JAHamilton77

WBC
WBO
WBA
IBF

Not real popular among Americans to place the WBO belt up there, but I feel lit has grown in prestige in the last 5 or so years. IBO = Next Big Thing. IBF = Most corrupt organization out there,

I'd say WBO is the weakest one of all...

and my award for most currupt organization goes to Jose Sulliman --> WBC

**kayjay** · 04-24-2007, 01:42 PM

What Soprano said; "the fighter makes the belt" has almost become a cliche here, and tightly so.

**Steelhammer86** · 04-24-2007, 01:45 PM

The Ring Magazine ratings are more meaningful than any of the belts. The most accurate ratings are those by the ********* website IMO.

I think the IBF despite its imperfections is the best sanctioning body. I like the way they have their champions fight the mandatories without delay, and they have the best heavyweight as their titleholder.

WBA despite its great tradition is probably the worst, they have some weak titleholders (M'Baye) and they don't always include the better boxers in their rankings (Peter). I didn't like the way they let Valuev fight three times before facing a mandatory challenger (should be once).

WBO has some of the best titleholders (Calzaghe) but some of the weakest (Briggs). Some say the WBC is corrupt, but they have some of the top boxers in the world as titleholders. The IBO has a better system of rating fighters, and also has some of the best champions (Wlad now, in the past Lewis).

**scap** · 04-24-2007, 01:48 PM

THE RING is the only belts that means anything, all others are literally ****.

For Americans: Rate the belts!