Crusading For Simplicity And…(Gasp!)…Integrity

[Southpaw Stinger]

They all mean nothing to me.

[Dave Rado]

By Lyle Fitzsimmons - Every couple of days, there's something else.

Another of my colleagues in the boxing media business – be they friend or foe in terms of affiliation – comes out with an online or print opinion that laments the existence of sanctioning bodies and the often-dubious role they play in our sport.

It's always easy copy. And it's generally pretty justified.

The premier target of late has been the World Boxing Association, whose interpretations of words like "world" and "interim" have changed from scenarios involving championship injury or layoff to ones simply involving extra sources from which to siphon sanctioning fees.

Specifically raising ire this time was Friday night’s bout between unbeaten Cuban import Yuriorkis Gamboa and 33-fight veteran Jose Rojas – billed by the Panama-based group as an "interim" championship event in the featherweight division and won by Gamboa in 10 one-sided rounds.

To my knowledge, the collective disgust is nothing personal against Gamboa. He's shown talent and mettle over 15 pro fights in splashes across American cable TV. And it wasn’t an indictment of Rojas, in spite of seven career losses and winless record (0-3-1) in four previous WBA title tries since 1997. [details]

The Ring belt is far more credible than the IBO because it's based on the lineal title. Why promote yet another alphabet organisation when we already have too many, instead of promoting the lineal/Ring title?

[Southpaw Stinger]

The Ring belt is far more credible than the IBO because it's based on the lineal title. Why promote yet another alphabet organisation when we already have too many, instead of promoting the lineal/Ring title?

Yep the ring beats all the alphabet boys hands down.

[vitali1999]

Quite honestly, I care so little about the WBA, WBC, and IBF belts nowadays, that I wouldnt mind trashing them all now and taking up the IBO.

What the boxing community REALLY needs is one of the major boxing stations to take a stand. We can sit back and talk about how bad they are, but it wont get that much done.

Now, if HBO simply stopped recongnising the WBA, WBC and IBF, and recongnised the IBO...now you would see some MAJOR changes.

we cant rid of these garbage belts without help from the broadcasting networks and especially the boxers fighting for them. if the boxers continue to support these belts, itll be hard to get rid of them.

I have a really bad feeling that all that will happen is that we'll end up recongnising the IBO, without getting rid of any of the rest of the belts. which is the most awful thing that could happen.
thats why we need to start trashing the belts, one at a time.

Thats exactly what is going to happen, the IBO is gonna be another belt in the mix to just further hurt the sport, get real people, wake up, this is reality, HBO is not gonna recognise the IBO, and trash the real ones, by everybody trying to strengthen the IBO, is just adding to the pain, it hurt when the WBO was added, now you want more, this is the reason why MMA is so big now and non of the youngsters watch boxing anymore, i challenge you to find somebody under 23 that prefers boxing to MMA?

[HeartAttack]

The Ring belt is far more credible than the IBO because it's based on the lineal title. Why promote yet another alphabet organisation when we already have too many, instead of promoting the lineal/Ring title?

As usual we're on the same page here. I can respect the premise of the rankings with the IBO a bit more and how they don't strip their titlist. However, I can/will NEVER support and entity that "taxes" fighters for winning their titles. I'll use this analogy a thousand times. Its the same as if The Heisman Trophy Trust charged Sam Bradford for winning the Heisman trophy. And then every time he makes an appearance as the Heisman winner, they take a portion of funds for being the winner. It's ***ing rediculous, yet thats what sanctioning bodies do to the fighters. The lineal title makes the fighter, the fighter makes the alphabet title.

[Dave Rado]

As usual we're on the same page here. I can respect the premise of the rankings with the IBO a bit more and how they don't strip their titlist. However, I can/will NEVER support and entity that "taxes" fighters for winning their titles. I'll use this analogy a thousand times. Its the same as if The Heisman Trophy Trust charged Sam Bradford for winning the Heisman trophy. And then every time he makes an appearance as the Heisman winner, they take a portion of funds for being the winner. It's ***ing rediculous, yet thats what sanctioning bodies do to the fighters. The lineal title makes the fighter, the fighter makes the alphabet title.

The problem is, no one in the mainstream media gives The Ring or Lineal titles any credibility.

See here for example:

Ricky Hatton is the current light welterweight kingpin, has been for years in fact, yet there are others within the 140 division who are currently laying claim to being ‘the champion’. At present Timothy Bradley parades the WBC and WBO baubles, Juan Urango punches under the IBF banner, whilst the aforementioned Kotelnik holds his trousers up with a little black number sponsored by the WBA. During the recent Holt-Bradley telecast, Showtime managed to identify all of these men as champions, with Ricky Hatton harvesting nary a mention and here lies a major problem. Whilst Ricky has proven himself the best light welterweight in the world, in the ring where it counts, what exactly is it that these men champion?

If even Showtime think paper belt holder = world champion, and Ring/lineal title holder = also ran, what hope is there for boxing as a mainstream sport?

The UK media has recently been claiming that Carl Froch is Britain's only world champion, even though Froch is only ranked #6 in the world by The Ring, Kessler is the nearest thing to a super-middleweight champion at the moment, and Britain's only lineal world champion currently is Hatton.

And now even this boxingscene article promotes the IBO belt and doesn't mention The Ring or lineal titles.

It's all very well for hardcore fans to say that The Ring belt is all that matters, but until the mainstream media does likewise, the alphabet organisations will still run the sport.

Most boxers don't fight for The Ring belt, currently, they fight for paper titles, which why so many Ring titles are vacant; and the mainstream media is largely to blame, IMO.

[HeartAttack]

The problem is, no one in the mainstream media gives The Ring or Lineal titles any credibility.

See here for example:

Ricky Hatton is the current light welterweight kingpin, has been for years in fact, yet there are others within the 140 division who are currently laying claim to being ‘the champion’. At present Timothy Bradley parades the WBC and WBO baubles, Juan Urango punches under the IBF banner, whilst the aforementioned Kotelnik holds his trousers up with a little black number sponsored by the WBA. During the recent Holt-Bradley telecast, Showtime managed to identify all of these men as champions, with Ricky Hatton harvesting nary a mention and here lies a major problem. Whilst Ricky has proven himself the best light welterweight in the world, in the ring where it counts, what exactly is it that these men champion?

If even Showtime think paper belt holder = world champion, and Ring/lineal title holder = also ran, what hope is there for boxing as a mainstream sport?

The UK media has recently been claiming that Carl Froch is Britain's only world champion, even though Froch is only ranked #6 in the world by The Ring, Kessler is the nearest thing to a super-middleweight champion at the moment, and Britain's only lineal world champion currently is Hatton.

And now even this boxingscene article promotes the IBO belt and doesn't mention The Ring or lineal titles.

It's all very well for hardcore fans to say that The Ring belt is all that matters, but until the mainstream media does likewise, the alphabet organisations will still run the sport.

Most boxers don't fight for The Ring belt, currently, they fight for paper titles, which why so many Ring titles are vacant; and the mainstream media is largely to blame, IMO.

Good sir I write for this site and I only champion lineal title holders. However, I even find "constraints" placed upon my rhetoric when i chose to refer to some fighters as merely titlist when others are the champions. They will periodically change my wording to be more sympathetic towards the sanctioning bodies. I generally get to say what I want, just it's always watered down.

[Dave Rado]

Good sir I write for this site and I only champion lineal title holders. However, I even find "constraints" placed upon my rhetoric when i chose to refer to some fighters as merely titlist when others are the champions. They will periodically change my wording to be more sympathetic towards the sanctioning bodies. I generally get to say what I want, just it's always watered down.

Interesting, thanks for that insight. Do they tell you their reasons for watering it down?

And do you have any idea why most of the mainstream media ignores The Ring titles? Is the problem that The Ring is seen as a competitor by some of the media, or as a "just a magazine", do you think?

It would also be interesting to know why Lyle Fitzsimmons didn't mention The Ring or lineal titles in his article.

[HeartAttack]

Interesting, thanks for that insight. Do they tell you their reasons for watering it down?

And do you have any idea why most of the mainstream media ignores The Ring titles? Is the problem that The Ring is seen as a competitor by some of the media, or as a "just a magazine", do you think?

It would also be interesting to know why Lyle Fitzsimmons didn't mention The Ring or lineal titles in his article.

Can't tell you why Lyle didn't mention The Ring. As a whole the media members I stay in contact with really only give credence to The Ring or Linear titles. Same goes for the site when it comes to editing, but if I'm mentioning a Klitschko or say it was about Mayweather or Manny at lightweight. They would pop in their alphabet belts even though Wlad nor Vitali have been champion, and Baldomir was technically the champ or Casamayor or marquez being the lightweight kingpin. I'm not too fond of it, but I can see where they are coming from sometimes. As far as television broadcast, HBO will try and (successfully) get Max Kellerman to taper back on his lineal rhetoric from time to time. Same goes with Lampley to a much smaller degree. Some fights HBO will laude the sanctioning bodies and others it will properly negate their importance. However, SHowtime just plain nuthugs. Al Bernstein is a man of vast boxing knowledge and integrity out of the limelight. When placed in front of that SHowtime camera, he is forced to say things he doesn't believe. Like the Gamboa fight being a title affair. It seems that Showtime is too scared of losing thses solid fights if they don't appease the sanctioning bodies. So the destructive talk of interim champions, super champions, champions in recess, and regular champions have diluted the integrity and viability of the sport and its combatants and these terms have found an outlet in Showtime broadcast. That hurts us immensely. More media personas need to follow the lineal lines more and fighters need to do the same. Chad Dawson is a great example of someone who was willing to give up Jose Sulaiman's s.hit belt and a fight with Diaconu (whom had already pulled out of the fight months earlier) to fight a big time pro in Antonio Tarver. Smart move on behlaf of Chad, and if Bernard Hopkins will fight him. He will shed the IBF strap to fight Bernard before he tends to business with Tavoris Cloud.

[BattlingNelson]

Good read and thanks for the effort.

IBO just might be the best of a bad bunch of alphabet boys. They do, however, lack history and highprofile fighters/champions. In terms of ratings the IBO is the best not because the rankings are computerized and unbiased by man, but because it features beltholders in other organizations.