Comments Thread For: It's time to disqualify the IBF for hitting boxers and fans below the belts

[BoxingUpdates]

There was a time when the IBF was, fairly indisputably, the least problematic of boxing's major alphabet groups. Granted, that statement is 99 per cent backhand, 1 per cent compliment. It's like celebrating the best abs at the pie-eating contest or the most natural-looking Kardashian.
[Click Here To Read More]

[El_Mero]

If you gon point at the ibf, make sure you same the same sh.it, if not more about the wba (STILL too many belts) and the wbc which picks and chooses which champs it makes defend against mandatories, etc.....

[DougalDylan]

!) 1st Usyk dropped the title (that's what Usyk said) presumably he got some cash of Turki but he seemed happy todo so.
2) We all know who the No.1 is Usyk and the belts just define the mandatorys after Usyk retires or gets beat, He's No1 till then anyway. So I'm fine with this He's already beaten Tyson so why should Tyson get two shots at undisputed, if he now beats Usk 2nd time round he has to face the win of Saturday .. great and if not Usyk is till the lineal main man.

The Boots decision was just dumb though.

[Poopdick]

their mandatorys are horrid. and they strip winners and give belts to fighters who were already beaten by the champ. and wtf is Karen back as mandatory a year later and and .......corrupt fookers. and they actually have goofy fans who think it's cool because they"follow their rules"

[crimsonfalcon07]

Unfortunately, I agree with this article. It's a shame because they did have, for a short while, a reputation for following their rules. But considering how they have failed to enforce their rules in recent years for some while egregiously stripping champs when it doesn't make sense, I have no respect for the IBF or their belt right now. You tell them, Raskin!

[robbyheartbaby]

Building a narrative that the IBF is somehow worse than the other sanctioning bodies is ridiculous. You criticise mandatories yet are you willing to defend the fact Benavidez was mandatory at 168 for the WBC strap for 2 years yet wasn’t given his shot Canelo? You can’t have it both ways.

[The D3vil]

I used to respect the IBF, too.

[Clegg]

While I never support stripping a champion of his title if he remains active in the weight class and hasn’t been suspended for some form of cheating, I could maybe, possibly see a case for stripping Canelo if his mandatory challenger was David Benavidez and Alvarez was blatantly dodging his most dangerous and deserving contender. I still don’t think stripping would be appropriate in that instance.

Anybody with this attitude is obviously going to have an issue with an organisation that enforces mandatories.

[Boro]

The IBF used to be one of the more respectable sanctioning bodies due to their willingness to strip and enforce mandatories but they've been doing it at the most inappropriate times going back to the Wlad vs Fury fight.

It was absurd Fury got stripped for agreeing to a rematch and not fighting Glazkov but instead taking the most logical and significant fight for him and his career and most importantly what was agreed to with Wlad. (though we know he ultimately didn't fulfill his obligation to Wlad)

And now they're not only ratcheting up there absurdity to a whole new level and it seems to lack any rhyme or reason but also the frequency in which they're doing so.

[Clegg]

Will there be consistency with the sanctioning body criticism? WBA are in bed with PBC. WBO in bed with Arum/Warren. WBC in bed with whoever offers the biggest envelope that week. Will expect an article on any of that one of these days/never.

The reason we get poor quality mandatories is that the IBF enforce them. What this means is that if you want to cherry pick and marinate, you don't go for that belt because you can't use corruption to control your future opponents as easily. People are (understandably) complaining about the Boots-Karen rematch. But another way of looking at it is that Boots might not even be champ if not for the IBF. At the time Bud moved up, Staniosis held a WBA interim belt so was going to get elevated. WBC allowed Barrios to fight for an interim belt so he was going to get elevated. WBO let Arum put 2 unproven guys in an in-house fight for their vacant belt. It's reasonable to have a problem with this poor mandatory fight, but do so in context. If not for the IBF, Boots would still be frozen out, the other champs would find reasons not to face him and their corrupt sanction bodies would find excuses to support that.

A couple of other things: this mandatory could've been delayed. Hearn had time to negotiate a unification and he didn't pull it off. So he has to take some of the blame. This wasn't a situation that appeared out of nowhere overnight. Also, Boots was almost certainly going to face a soft opponent next anyway because nobody wants to face him. There is no impressive contender in the division, nobody notable calling Boots out.