Of all the 4 alphabet sanctioning bodies...which is best?

[Scipio2009]

Just a recent example, you can check for yourself, the WBA keep an archive of their monthly rankings

The WBA, in a one fell swoop, lost both of their champions within 2 months. The organization sat down, surveyed the field, and put forward their best solution; Benevidez-DiRocco for one of the belts, Broner-Allahkverdiev for the other (Amir Imam targeting the WBC belt, I believe, took his name out of consideration).

I've yet to see anyone point out better 140 fighters than the 4 chosen who were passed over.

[Scipio2009]

IBF by far.

IBF

WBO





WBC



























WBA

lol, after the shenanigans that the WBO has already pulled? gtfoh

[Raonic]

lol, after the shenanigans that the WBO has already pulled? gtfoh

Lol all organizations pull some **** but WBO doesn't pull as much as WBC and WBA. At the very least you say WBO/WBC are even.

[285Kid]

The IBF is going to win your poll bro, the IBF names a mandatory fight

[Scipio2009]

Lol all organizations pull some **** but WBO doesn't pull as much as WBC and WBA. At the very least you say WBO/WBC are even.

Outside of the Martinez/Chavez Jr situation, the WBC has nowhere near the history of stripping guys of their titles as the WBO does, and the WBC's been around for 40 years longer than the WBO.

The WBC, and the WBA to a large extent, are openly known as organizations that sit on their hands, deferring to their champions and stars more than folks would like.

The WBO, almost blatantly, goes out of their way to actively put their belt on certain fighters and with certain promoters. Now, I can't honestly say that it happens in every situation, but you can't look at what's being done with Rigondeaux and Andrade (both stripped of their titles, with the vacant fights positioned in such a way to move said titles back to Arum and Warren, respectively), and the machinations that pushed certain challengers out of the picture just long enough to go with the favored promoter and not pause.

The WBC hasn't done anything that low, arguably since Don King's heyday.

[Box-Office]

All of the bodies have something about them you can pick up and slate them for, IBF which is held as holier than thou let Peterson keep his belt despite being on roids, WBO had the dead boxer thing, I don't think I even need to touch on WBC and WBA.

For me I recognize the holders of all 4 as champs, of course with WBA it gets tricky.

However, I do really like the WBC because they have the most classiest looking belt & wish all my favorite fighters to get a hold of it (eventually).

[Raonic]

Outside of the Martinez/Chavez Jr situation, the WBC has nowhere near the history of stripping guys of their titles as the WBO does, and the WBC's been around for 40 years longer than the WBO.

The WBC, and the WBA to a large extent, are openly known as organizations that sit on their hands, deferring to their champions and stars more than folks would like.

The WBO, almost blatantly, goes out of their way to actively put their belt on certain fighters and with certain promoters. Now, I can't honestly say that it happens in every situation, but you can't look at what's being done with Rigondeaux and Andrade (both stripped of their titles, with the vacant fights positioned in such a way to move said titles back to Arum and Warren, respectively), and the machinations that pushed certain challengers out of the picture just long enough to go with the favored promoter and not pause.

The WBC hasn't done anything that low, arguably since Don King's heyday.

What about allowing a retired fighter to keep a title or letting them keep titles without making a defense for the title?

Or allowing blatantly rebbile voluntary title defenses against terrible fighters?

Don't get me wrong, WBO isn't pretty, but WBC has as much faults.

[JmH Reborn]

When I talk to my non-boxing friends and boxing talk comes up [usually when I'm defending boxing's honor] I usually point to the Ring Mag champ as the true champ. Someetimes RIng champ and perceived best don't always line up, but for the most part they do.

Anxiously waiting for PBC so all the four titles can go away

[gee73]

However, I do really like the WBC because they have the most classiest looking belt & wish all my favorite fighters to get a hold of it (eventually).

Yeah....


IBF is the best, they enforce rules, but their rankings suck.

The WBO is ok, but works too much with certain promoters. At least they don't hand interim titles left and right. Questionable rankings.

The WBC is bad for many things. One good example is WIlders way to his mandatory. He got up 8 ranks when he was #15 without a fight. Their explination was that he is a future champion (no joke). He fought one or two more bums and got an eliminator against Malik Scott. When news of the eliminator came through, Scott haven't even fought after his stoppage loss to Chisora. So Scott fought and blew out a bum in the first round. WBC doesn't give a f***... But at least they are better now than under Jose Sulaiman. That dude was like Kim Yong-Un.

WBA is horrible. Some dude didn't fight for two years, won a six rounder, got ranked and then fought for the vacant interim WBA super middleweight title against Feigenbutz this year. And got stopped easily. This says it all.

[Scipio2009]

What about allowing a retired fighter to keep a title or letting them keep titles without making a defense for the title?

Or allowing blatantly rebbile voluntary title defenses against terrible fighters?

Don't get me wrong, WBO isn't pretty, but WBC has as much faults.

The WBC is holding their convention soon; let them square all that away at their convention, as they've already been reported to have as their plan. smh.

And you really want to talk about voluntary title defenses? lol