Which alphabet sanctioning body keeps it real?

**Larry the boss** · 04-24-2011, 03:38 PM

wbc-wba=full of **** to many differant belts

ibf-will strip you for anything

so id have to say the wbo

**Pessimistic** · 04-24-2011, 03:38 PM

Not expecting any replies, vote though please so I can see if others agree with me that the IBF sanctioning body is the most legit.

**Kevin Malone** · 04-24-2011, 03:42 PM

None of them. They are all shady and each organization is there for it's own interest, not the fighters or fans.

**cooper5** · 04-24-2011, 04:19 PM

None of them they are all self serving and have no interest in doing what is best for the sport.

How much does it cost for a ranking these days?

**jri9d0** · 04-24-2011, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by Kevin Malone

None of them. They are all shady and each organization is there for it's own interest, not the fighters or fans.

^^^^ This, which is why boxing (along with its greedy promoters) are in a state of shame!

**Kevin Malone** · 04-24-2011, 04:21 PM

If there is a real sanctioning body that comes into play that has one single belt for each division, does not charge any sanctioning fees (it would be entirely volunteers), and has remotely decent rankings I would support it.

Some may say the Ring rankings and belts are like this, but they aren't a sanctioning body.

**Swag Hustla** · 04-24-2011, 04:21 PM

I hate them all for different reasons.

WBO is the less of 4 evils, but they are still evil.

**theplayerpimp** · 04-24-2011, 04:27 PM

I would say the ibf only bc they are the only ones who have one champion per division. All the rest especially the wba have numerous champs per division.

**Swag Hustla** · 04-24-2011, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by Pessimistic

It seems that world titles have lost their meaning. They actually used to mean 'champ'. Half the time there is silver belts, diamond belts, emeritus champions, super champions, and interim champions, paper champions. I'm going out on a limb here and say the IBF because at least they hold you accountable to your mandatories. If you don't defend it they strip you and let the other contenders fight for it. Basically, they say your the champ so prove it.

Yeah, but who are these mandatories?

I'll never forget when Malignaggi was stripped for fighting Hatton, while Urango and Ngoudjo (two guys Hatton and Malignaggi beat) fought for the vacant IBF title.

I'll admit the IBF is somewhat consistent, but when they strip a fighter for wanting to fight a real challenger rather than a guy they already beat or some obscure challenger, they lose credibility.

The IBF title is probably the hardest title to unify. I've seen the IBF strip fighters even after fighting a mandatory.

I believe the WBA is the worst overall, and the WBC plays favorites way too often.

I like the WBO more than the IBF because they seem a lot more fair to their fighters and makes it easier for their champions to unify. Not too crazy about their interim champions, but they are nowhere near as bad compared to the WBA or WBC.

Which alphabet sanctioning body keeps it real?