question for UK & EU boxing fans

[aldo5408]

Boxing died in the uk and was revived but it is a casual sport here, for example, they can't even tell brook is a fraud who calls out big names and then ducks them...then he goes on a pr campaign to think everyone including isis is ducking him

the uk really only care about their local champ, what hearn feeds to them via sky sports and world champs

you can an awful champ, take brook for example, but hearn and co would make people believe mayweather retired to duck him

Damn that's crazy. you guys think the same of chunky degale?

[techliam]

The BBBC has had no realistic rival - the Lonsdale belt is now, and has been, a cultural sport icon here, at least on a domestic level. This was firmly established way before the WBC came to light. The EBU you could argue much the same - it had a big presence around the time of the NBA and NYSAC, offering Europe’s best on the world title stage. The NBA's (and later, the WBA’s) equivalent of a European championship lacked the foundation and recognition the EBU/IBU had for a long time - on top of the fact the NBA was seen as an American title.

The WBC on the other hand, has always had a major, legitimate rival in the WBA - on a much different level from say a rivalry between the EBU/EBA. The WBA has just as many, if not more, major claims to being the most prestigious title as the WBC has. Why would fans differentiate between them? Because the EBU and BBBC were founding members? I don’t see why fans would care about that. Perhaps they would if the EBU/BBBC didn’t recognise the WBA, but they wisely chose to. But thats purely hypothetical. Whilst I don’t agree Europe ‘single-handedly’ put the WBO on the map, labelling a fighter is a world champion is a lot different than claiming someone is British or European champion - legitimate world-class fighters held the WBO title, thus giving it legitimacy, and they weren’t all European.

Yes the WBC consists of 9 continental federations, but the BBBofC is not one of them. It is a founding member though, but it is not exclusive to the WBC and never has been. The same for the CBC (Commonwealth). The EBU is a WBC continental federation, but even then it’s relationship with the WBC can be overstated - it works with all 4 major sanctioning bodies, despite the WBC giving EBU champions favourable rankings.

You’re right, it was a poor choice of words on my part. You haven’t claimed the WBC is the only world title that matters, but you’ve claimed these gems instead, which is what I meant to say:

wilder is the WBC champion. the belt the public respects the most

the WBC is the clear leader.

History has shown the WBC belt to be the most prestigious and lucrative championship BELT in boxing.

the belt that has been the most prestigious and lucrative throughout boxing history.

Wladimir was never the undisputed champion. He won three of the four recognized titles, but was missing the most important one.

You still haven’t provided any evidence for these claims. Like you say, no-ones entitled to their own facts. I knew this thread would be pro-WBC as soon as I opened it. I just hope Deontay Wilder isn’t affecting this view, especially as you’ve admitted your support for PBC.

[Unseen]

ZMM -

Thanks for the insight. If the WBA gave up on bothering to have a European champion, that really shows that the WBC's European champion is the only one taken seriously.

Does the IBF even bother anymore with their East/West Europe championship?



Kafkod -

I don't know where you get your information from, but your post is full of inaccuracies.

Back before the WBA was the NBA, the EBU was known as the IBU in the early 1900s. The name changed to EBU in the 1940s and they were one of the founders of the WBC in 1960s. I have absolutely no idea why you think the EBU didn't exist yet in the 1960s, especially when it had already existed for *50* years. Where the hell are you getting your info from?!?

The WBC was founded by many parties, including the president of Mexico, the NYSAC, the EBU, the BBBofC and others. The president of the BBBofC was elected as the first president of the WBC.

The BBBofC and EBU were founders of the WBC and to this day continue to be WBC federations. So if the WBC British title is considered the real British title and the WBC European title is considered the real European title, why wouldn't that make the WBC world title the real world title in the eyes of the fans that recognize the BBBofC and EBU as the real British and European titles?



Dirk -

I like the logical progression as well and wish we had a similar system here in the US.

But what's strange to me is that you guys have one specific recognized British title, one specific recognized European title, but then suddenly when it's time to go for the world title, you guys recognize FOUR world champions, even though the BBBofC and EBU specifically created the WBC.

British and European titles are really stepping stone achievements. It's good experience for a title fight and often it's 15 ish or so fights when people go for it.

When it comes to the World titles, 4 are chosen due to it being a lot harder to get. Promoters will go for any that they can gain. Casual fans do nto understand the difference TBH.

The WBO and WBA I believe were not as well respected world wide, but Brits didn't care.

[Butt stuff]

Techliam -

So if the WBA was seen as an American title (which it really was until the 1976 coup) and the BBBofC & EBU helped launch the WBC, with the BBBofC president being elected the first WBC president, and the WBC even being formed in the fist place because the WBA was seen as an American title, was the WBC seen as a class above the WBA in the UK from 63-76 or were they always viewed as equals?

I don't view the WBA having equal claim as the WBC for a few reasons. Historically, in the pre-WBA/WBC/IBF/WBO era, the most recognized bodies were the IBU, NYSAC, NBA and NSC. The NBA is now the WBA and the IBU (as EBU), NYSAC and NSC (as BBBofC) for the WBC. So the WBC is 3/4 of the classic world championships and the WBA is 1/4.

But to take it a step further, the WBA split off into the IBF and WBO. So really, if you unify the WBA/IBF/WBO, you're really still only 25% of the historical world championship, with the WBC maintaining 75% of the lineage. Leaving the WBA with only 8.33%.

75% > 8.33%. It's not even close. That's one of the reasons why I view the WBC as the most historic organization, even if I hate the alphabelt system and want PBC to kill it off.

You're incorrect about the BBBofC. It is one of the WBC continental federations and is clearly listed as such here:

http://wbcboxing.com/wbceng/images/organization/0.jpg

I have claimed that the WBC belt has historically been the most prestigious and lucrative belt in boxing. The facts support that premise. Look at the average purse for a WBC champion vs a non-WBC champion. Look at the percentage of the most lucrative fights in boxing history that were the WBC title vs a non-WBC title. Is there really any dispute that the WBC has done the best job of catering to the biggest stars and making sure their belt is the most lucrative?

Yes, legitimate world-class fighters held the WBO title, which helped establish the struggling organization. But it doesn't change the fact that the belt was the easiest to win because it wasn't recognized elsewhere and that Europe basically propped up a new organization so they could have a bunch of world champions.

I don't blame Warren for doing it. Don King and Arum had so many of the belts locked up. It allowed Warren to have his own playground and then others followed suit.

why u so mad tho, just say what u wanna say b b