Tweet
I was thinking, WBC and WBA are often maligned and bashed for being unfair and corrupt while IBF is considered the more "cool" and less corrupt organisation/belt. Is that really so? I mean, WBC and WBA have usually had more great champions than IBF. Kessler is the WBA champ. Actually now it seems as if WBC has become a more "trashy" title than WBA, which previously was considered(and in large part thanks to guys like Ruiz and Valuev) the most "******" title.
-
-
No. Aside from Ring belt they just $ makers. -
the 4 world titles dont mean much
the fighter makes the beltComment
-
all these belts and federations or whatever the **** you call them is what is truly wrong with boxing.Comment
-
The fighters make the belt, so its different from weight to weight which belts mean anything.Comment
-
Not really. Which is why I like The Ring belt the most.
Belts these days are stepping stones. Look at guys like Berto, who's a good fighter but no one considers him Welterweight champ of the world. His belt was a stepping stone and gives him some leverage, that's all.
Oh how I wish the greedy bastards would one day unite and create a SINGLE & international boxing organization. How awesome would that be.Comment
-
WBA has so many titles it's hard to keep track of them. There's regular champ, super champ, interim champ, super-di-dooper champ, etc.
Out of all of them, IBF seems to have the least corruption.
In the end,there should only be one world champion and one world title.Comment
-
They're all gashComment
-
The fighter makes the belt. You can say a fighter has a "****ty" belt, but if he beat ass to get there, then it's fine.Comment
Hil-larious!
Comment