Tweet
We have too many belts. thats the truth. and theyre all pretty terrible at this point. but some are worse than others.
If you had the choice to get rid of one of the alphabet belts, which one would you trash?
personally, I respect the IBf the most. They do some dumb things too, yes, but at least they try setting up mini-tournameants for title shots occasionally and arent that bad when it comes to annoying mandatories and unnecessary interim titles.
the WBC is problebly 2nd best.
the WBA and WBO are easily the worst. the WBA's policy on having a super champion is laughable, and is clearly just a way for them to make more money. it would be nice if they just called the unified champ the super champ and were done with it, but no, they have to make a regular champ too? ug...
both the WBA and WBO have horrible mandatories...not only do their champions seem to fight weak opposition, but it seems like the belts force them to do it constantly, making real fights lamost impossible if the fighter wants to keep the belt.
but, in the end, I would choose to get rid of the WBO. Ring Magazine to this day doesnt recongnise them as a real belt I believe, and honestly, why should we even have it? at least the WBA has historical significance. the WBO overall has the worst roster of champions and is just a terrible and annoying belt in general. there is no reason for it to exist.
If you had the choice to get rid of one of the alphabet belts, which one would you trash?
personally, I respect the IBf the most. They do some dumb things too, yes, but at least they try setting up mini-tournameants for title shots occasionally and arent that bad when it comes to annoying mandatories and unnecessary interim titles.
the WBC is problebly 2nd best.
the WBA and WBO are easily the worst. the WBA's policy on having a super champion is laughable, and is clearly just a way for them to make more money. it would be nice if they just called the unified champ the super champ and were done with it, but no, they have to make a regular champ too? ug...
both the WBA and WBO have horrible mandatories...not only do their champions seem to fight weak opposition, but it seems like the belts force them to do it constantly, making real fights lamost impossible if the fighter wants to keep the belt.
but, in the end, I would choose to get rid of the WBO. Ring Magazine to this day doesnt recongnise them as a real belt I believe, and honestly, why should we even have it? at least the WBA has historical significance. the WBO overall has the worst roster of champions and is just a terrible and annoying belt in general. there is no reason for it to exist.
Comment