Which organisations have the better champions?

[Steelhammer86]

I think the best ratings are by Ring Magazine, although I don't always agree with them. The IBO has a more objective and scientific system of ratings, as has BoxRec.

Three of the four organizations each have several good champions. IBF has Wlad, WBO has Calzaghe, and WBC has Mayweather. They all seem a bit corrupt, but I notice the IBF and the WBO have no badly overranked fighters, and at least they enforce their mandatories. WBC has some absurdly overranked contenders (like Sunil Sam as their #2 heavyweight). The WBO and IBF are at least trying to do some things right.

The worst organization is the oldest, the WBA. They have overall the weakest champions (M'Baye, Drews, Sturm) sometimes several titleholders at the same time in the same division to further confuse things (Hill, Brudov and Mormeck), and many boxers too high in their ratings (Mollo is the #6 heavyweight according to the WBA) giving their titleholders easy voluntary defenses. They have only one mandatory every 18 months, so a new champion can have 3 or 4 voluntary defenses before fighting a top opponent. They do have some top titleholders like Cotto, but overall it's the worst organization.

What boxing needs most is a merger of some of these organizations.

[OptimusWolf]

The IBO seem to be making a concerted effort to get the best fighter to hold their belt eg Wlad, Hopkins, Hatton, Darchynian. They've also got their fair share of WBU type champs, but at least they're not stripping people for not taking meaningless mandatories when there are bigger fights to be made.

I always thought that the WBC was the most important belt, but now I seriously don't care.

Just done a scoring system on the champs from each orgainsation from Bantamweight up and I've got the WBC as best overall, then WBA-WBO level and IBF the worst.