Tweet
I'm never sure about this one. I judge them based off champions, rankings, forcing mandatories, stripping belts (for the right reasons) and also just sticking to the rules.
I think the WBC has the strongest champions but I also think they are the most corrupt (stripping Martinez and giving Chavez the belt, and stripping Ward was just ******) also they are they do the dumbest things like open scoring and no unifications (but they allow it if the guy earns the most money in the division)
I think the IBF has decent rankings and they seem to be good with forcing champions to fight their mandatories, but they have a weak crop of champions.
WBO has some good champions and doesn't do anything that upsets me too much.
WBA loses its case for being the best automatically because it has 2 champions per division which is just insane.
I'm aware they're all bad, but this is only in comparison to eachother
I think the WBC has the strongest champions but I also think they are the most corrupt (stripping Martinez and giving Chavez the belt, and stripping Ward was just ******) also they are they do the dumbest things like open scoring and no unifications (but they allow it if the guy earns the most money in the division)
I think the IBF has decent rankings and they seem to be good with forcing champions to fight their mandatories, but they have a weak crop of champions.
WBO has some good champions and doesn't do anything that upsets me too much.
WBA loses its case for being the best automatically because it has 2 champions per division which is just insane.
I'm aware they're all bad, but this is only in comparison to eachother
Comment