WBC, WBA or IBF?

[Kid McCoy]

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.

[hammerhiem]

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

[P4P Opinion]

WBC and IBF mean something.

The WBA have lost my respect with their bull**** system and are on a comparable level to the WBO now.

[gridiron]

WBC and IBF mean something.

Again, why?

I can’t see why giants such as Boxing News, The Ring, *********.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!