Tweet
by David P. Greisman - Change is easy. Acceptance is the hard part.
Boxing has gone from having one major sanctioning body to having two, from having two major sanctioning bodies to having three, and from having three major sanctioning bodies to having four.
Having four sanctioning bodies – the World Boxing Association, World Boxing Council, International Boxing Federation, and World Boxing Organization – has been the status quo for more than a decade now.
On the outside looking in is the International Boxing Organization, or IBO, which pitches itself as an agent of change.
Change is easy.
The IBO refers to itself as a “champion of integrity,” with its main selling point being what it calls its “unbiased, computerized rankings.” The goal, in a sport where most observers are disillusioned with sanctioning bodies that are never described as having integrity, is for the IBO to be seen not merely as the fifth major sanctioning body, but as the one major sanctioning body different than the other four.
Acceptance is the hard part.
I’ve been critical of the IBO. In late 2007, I noted that while it had “yet to reach the depths of infamy discovered by its more-recognized counterparts,” its belts did not yet have “the legitimacy that has been bestowed, rightly or otherwise, upon the big four.”
I had concerns, what I felt was valid criticism, and went into these occasionally in the past couple years.
Changing your mind isn’t easy.
An experienced newspaper columnist once told me he shook off criticism of his opinions because, he said, “I know I’m right.”
I realize, now, I could be wrong.
I realized I’d been holding the IBO to higher standards than I do the WBA, WBC, IBF and WBO, that I’d been using those double standards to write the IBO off.
I still had the same concerns. I still had what I felt was legitimate criticism. But instead of just raising questions, I sought answers. [Click Here To Read More]
Boxing has gone from having one major sanctioning body to having two, from having two major sanctioning bodies to having three, and from having three major sanctioning bodies to having four.
Having four sanctioning bodies – the World Boxing Association, World Boxing Council, International Boxing Federation, and World Boxing Organization – has been the status quo for more than a decade now.
On the outside looking in is the International Boxing Organization, or IBO, which pitches itself as an agent of change.
Change is easy.
The IBO refers to itself as a “champion of integrity,” with its main selling point being what it calls its “unbiased, computerized rankings.” The goal, in a sport where most observers are disillusioned with sanctioning bodies that are never described as having integrity, is for the IBO to be seen not merely as the fifth major sanctioning body, but as the one major sanctioning body different than the other four.
Acceptance is the hard part.
I’ve been critical of the IBO. In late 2007, I noted that while it had “yet to reach the depths of infamy discovered by its more-recognized counterparts,” its belts did not yet have “the legitimacy that has been bestowed, rightly or otherwise, upon the big four.”
I had concerns, what I felt was valid criticism, and went into these occasionally in the past couple years.
Changing your mind isn’t easy.
An experienced newspaper columnist once told me he shook off criticism of his opinions because, he said, “I know I’m right.”
I realize, now, I could be wrong.
I realized I’d been holding the IBO to higher standards than I do the WBA, WBC, IBF and WBO, that I’d been using those double standards to write the IBO off.
I still had the same concerns. I still had what I felt was legitimate criticism. But instead of just raising questions, I sought answers. [Click Here To Read More]
Comment