Worst Boxing Org/Sanctioning Body of 2015?

[techliam]

The WBA can't be beaten as the worst, its just not possible

The WBC/WBO are typically corrupt and awful

The IBF's downfall as their strict adherence to their rules. Honestly, they need to add an exception to the rule where a long-time dominant champion has the right to fight for his old belt in a rematch. Thats just common sense. Other than that, you can't fault them for corruption anywhere near as much as the other three.

Lets not forget what the WBA has done all year though:
- They had 4 champions at once at middleweight.
- They sanctioned Cruz/Mares for a WBA super belt even though Cruz wasn't a WBA champion, nor was Mares highly ranked.
- They ranked Allakhverdiev 5 ranks (to rank 5) when he didn't fight ... to allow for a sham title fight with Broner. Other fighters, such as Lundy, fought in-between this period, yet seemed to drop ranks, or remain the same, in favour of Allakhverdiev.
- Broner was also allowed to fight for a title despite coming off a loss in another division, theres no explanation as to why he kept a ranking with the WBA. His regular title was also instantly upgraded to 'Super' for no apparent reason
- The WBA recognised Floyd Mayweather as the WBA welterweight and super welterweight champion, until only last week.
- David Haye is rank 9 at heavyweight for beating De Mori
- Made Rigondeaux 'champion in recess' with no apparent instant right to fight for his old belt - but still has to pay sanctioning fees to maintain this status.
- Attempted a pathetic tournament, which includes names that are beyond a joke (Oquendo, really?) to determine a true 'champion' of the WBA at heavyweight

Theres more I can add, but you get the the idea

[original zero]

US federal court is forcing them to include oquendo.

[aboutfkntime]

About Time -

Nobody is telling you to acknowledge the IBF. You can't on one hand insist the IBF is meaningless and then on the other hand be upset that Fury doesn't have their belt. Why do you care?

There are four world champions because boxing sucks. The fighters, networks and promoters benefit in the short term from multiple titles and the fans let them get away with it. Nobody said it wasn't silly. All that was said is that the IBF had no choice but to strip Fury.

If you don't think Glazkov is one of the top heavyweights on the planet, that's lovely, but he was one of the top heavyweights in the IBF. You have four orgs, only one of them enforces their rules, so the fighters fighting for the org that enforces their rules won't necessarily be the very best fighters.

When the IBF ordered their eliminator, who was willing to fight in that eliminator that you believe should have been given the opportunity instead of Glazkov? That's one of the many flaws with your argument. You keep criticizing Glazkov, but you haven't said who should have gotten the spot that was willing to accept the spot.

The IBF wasn't inept for ranking Glazkov #1. The IBF does not pick who is #1 or #2. You can only get the #1 or #2 ranking by winning a box off for the ranking. Glazkov won. IBF had no choice but to give him the #1 ranking. If you believe he shouldn't have been in the eliminator, then tell us who was willing to be in it that should have been in it instead.

Fury was stripped for not fighting the mandatory. Had he fought the mandatory, he would have been given a year to enjoy his title.

Martin fought the mandatory, so he has a year to enjoy his title.

This is very very simple stuff. But you're so emotionally attached to the topic (for some bizarre reason since you claim nobody should care about the IBF), that you're repeatedly using faulty logic.

Charles Martin is the undefeated IBF heavyweight champion of the world. I do think that makes him one of the best heavyweights on the planet. Certainly somewhere in the top 10, until proven otherwise.

I am using common sense. You just don't like the results. The IBF's job is to rank the fighters willing to fight for the IBF, order them to fight each other, and order the champion to face the #1 contender once a year. They followed their rules. Tyson Fury refused to face the #1 contender so he could make a voluntary defense instead.

The IBF had no choice but to strip Tyson Fury. We agree that the result of that decision was not in the best interest of the IBF.

Which should make you respect them even more. They did what was WORSE for the IBF and they did it because they have integrity. Glazkov won his eliminator. The rules said he gets the next shot. The IBF made far less money by giving him the shot.

In a sport full of corruption and favoritism, I'm not going to criticize the only org showing honor and integrity.

And you're seeing the end result of operating with honor and integrity: the top fighters run to the orgs that will give them special treatment.

So ignore the IBF. Refuse to recognize the IBF title. Do whatever you want. Nobody is telling you to care about the IBF.

But the IBF had no choice but to strip Tyson Fury.

Listen, I will leave it there, for two reasons.....

1) everything you said above, has been more-than-adequately addressed

2) mentioning Glazkov/Martin, in a discussion concerning the best heavyweight on the planet, is an absurd waste of time, and it is the weekend here

All I can say is this..... life is all about context.

You are arguing absurd/irrelevant/inaccurate " rules " in favor of logic and common-sense..... which is why I made that earlier comment regarding age.

But I do apologize for that comment, you're right, that was out-of-line.

I have 2 points to make, and then I will leave it, we can agree to disagree.

1) EVERY sanctioning organisation except the IBF (so, the WBA/WBC/WBO, and I will include TheRing, for arguments sake) ALL categorically state that you and the IBF are WRONG..... and they are ALL correct, because Martin is clearly not a top 10 heavyweight.

2) I challenge you to list your top 10 heavyweight fighters. Your list will prove one of 2 things.....

a) if your list includes Charles Martin, a lot of folks are going to question your boxing knowledge

b) and if your list does NOT include Charles Martin, everyone will wonder how the fk you could possily support that absurd decision by the IBF

And, you can make the exact same assertions regarding Glazkov, because clearly neither of them are top heavyweights.

[aboutfkntime]

The WBA can't be beaten as the worst, its just not possible

The WBC/WBO are typically corrupt and awful

The IBF's downfall as their strict adherence to their rules. Honestly, they need to add an exception to the rule where a long-time dominant champion has the right to fight for his old belt in a rematch. Thats just common sense. Other than that, you can't fault them for corruption anywhere near as much as the other three.

Lets not forget what the WBA has done all year though:
- They had 4 champions at once at middleweight.
- They sanctioned Cruz/Mares for a WBA super belt even though Cruz wasn't a WBA champion, nor was Mares highly ranked.
- They ranked Allakhverdiev 5 ranks (to rank 5) when he didn't fight ... to allow for a sham title fight with Broner. Other fighters, such as Lundy, fought in-between this period, yet seemed to drop ranks, or remain the same, in favour of Allakhverdiev.
- Broner was also allowed to fight for a title despite coming off a loss in another division, theres no explanation as to why he kept a ranking with the WBA. His regular title was also instantly upgraded to 'Super' for no apparent reason
- The WBA recognised Floyd Mayweather as the WBA welterweight and super welterweight champion, until only last week.
- David Haye is rank 9 at heavyweight for beating De Mori
- Made Rigondeaux 'champion in recess' with no apparent instant right to fight for his old belt - but still has to pay sanctioning fees to maintain this status.
- Attempted a pathetic tournament, which includes names that are beyond a joke (Oquendo, really?) to determine a true 'champion' of the WBA at heavyweight

Theres more I can add, but you get the the idea

I see the WBA just over-took the IBF as the worst org in this poll, so many agree with you..... and I often see folks rubbishing the WBA's "more is better" policy.

I still think I should have voted " other "

No idea really, who has the biggest negative impact on boxing.

[hectari]

For me its either the IBF or WBA

WBA was my pick because they have too many champions and have like two champs holding the same belt wtf is that, regular champ and super champ,?

They really want those sanctioning fees thats how they make money

same thing with WBC, they have the silver champ, and the regular WBC champ and the champ emeritus or whatever they call it.

[hectari]

For years The Ring magazine belt was the most credible, That was given to the lineal champion of the division.

[LoadedWraps]

For me its either the IBF or WBA

WBA was my pick because they have too many champions and have like two champs holding the same belt wtf is that, regular champ and super champ,?

They really want those sanctioning fees thats how they make money

same thing with WBC, they have the silver champ, and the regular WBC champ and the champ emeritus or whatever they call it.

Too many champs.

[original zero]

About Time -

Nobody said Charles Martin was the best heavyweight on the planet. The IBF enforces their rules, therefore the best fighters prefer the orgs that will break the rules for them, therefore being the champion of the IBF rarely means you're the best fighter on the planet.

I've never argued that you should value the IBF. I've never argued that being the IBF champion makes you the best in the world. I've never argued anything other than the IBF had no choice but to strip Fury. That is indisputable fact.

It's a fact you don't like, but a fact nonetheless. An IBF Mandatory had not been made since November 15, 2014. The mandatory was overdue and Fury was refusing to face the mandatory so that he could make a voluntary defense instead.

The IBF had no choice but to strip Fury. Had they allowed Fury to keep the title, Glazkov would have sued the IBF and won millions of dollars. There was absolutely no wiggle room. I know you don't like the facts. I know you don't like reality. Both of us would have preferred that the titles not be splintered, but the IBF had no choice and you've presented no evidence to suggest that they had a choice.

It's hilarious that you claim the WBO stated that Martin was not a top 10 heavyweight . . . because ***THE WBO HAD MARTIN RANKED #1***.

Again, ***THE WBO HAD MARTIN RANKED #1***.

#1.

#1.

The WBO had Martin ranked #1.

So for you to claim that they didn't have him in the top 10 just shows that you're making up your arguments as you go along and have no idea what you're talking about.

Btw, BoxingScene has Martin in the top 10 and so does Ring Magazine. TBRB has Martin in the top 10 as well.


Since you're so curious about my heavyweight rankings, here they are:


CHAMPION: TYSON FURY

#01 - Deontay Wilder
#02 - Wladimir Klitschko
#03 - Luis Ortiz
#04 - Alexander Povetkin
#05 - Kubrat Pulev
#06 - Charles Martin
#07 - Anthony Joshua
#08 - Ruslan Chagaev
#09 - Steve Cunningham
#10 - Bermane Stiverne

[LoadedWraps]

About Time -

Nobody said Charles Martin was the best heavyweight on the planet. The IBF enforces their rules, therefore the best fighters prefer the orgs that will break the rules for them, therefore being the champion of the IBF rarely means you're the best fighter on the planet.

I've never argued that you should value the IBF. I've never argued that being the IBF champion makes you the best in the world. I've never argued anything other than the IBF had no choice but to strip Fury. That is indisputable fact.

It's a fact you don't like, but a fact nonetheless. An IBF Mandatory had not been made since November 15, 2014. The mandatory was overdue and Fury was refusing to face the mandatory so that he could make a voluntary defense instead.

The IBF had no choice but to strip Fury. Had they allowed Fury to keep the title, Glazkov would have sued the IBF and won millions of dollars. There was absolutely no wiggle room. I know you don't like the facts. I know you don't like reality. Both of us would have preferred that the titles not be splintered, but the IBF had no choice and you've presented no evidence to suggest that they had a choice.

It's hilarious that you claim the WBO stated that Martin was not a top 10 heavyweight . . . because ***THE WBO HAD MARTIN RANKED #1***.

Again, ***THE WBO HAD MARTIN RANKED #1***.

#1.

#1.

The WBO had Martin ranked #1.

So for you to claim that they didn't have him in the top 10 just shows that you're making up your arguments as you go along and have no idea what you're talking about.

Btw, BoxingScene has Martin in the top 10 and so does Ring Magazine. TBRB has Martin in the top 10 as well.


Since you're so curious about my heavyweight rankings, here they are:


CHAMPION: TYSON FURY

#01 - Deontay Wilder
#02 - Wladimir Klitschko
#03 - Luis Ortiz
#04 - Alexander Povetkin
#05 - Kubrat Pulev
#06 - Charles Martin
#07 - Anthony Joshua
#08 - Ruslan Chagaev
#09 - Steve Cunningham
#10 - Bermane Stiverne

Why does Martin get a year but Fury less than a week? Why couldn't the IBF wait for Fury to honor his contract and then enforce a defense? Don't worry, i'll wait...

[aboutfkntime]

About Time -

Nobody said Charles Martin was the best heavyweight on the planet. The IBF enforces their rules, therefore the best fighters prefer the orgs that will break the rules for them, therefore being the champion of the IBF rarely means you're the best fighter on the planet.

I've never argued that you should value the IBF. I've never argued that being the IBF champion makes you the best in the world. I've never argued anything other than the IBF had no choice but to strip Fury. That is indisputable fact.

It's a fact you don't like, but a fact nonetheless. An IBF Mandatory had not been made since November 15, 2014. The mandatory was overdue and Fury was refusing to face the mandatory so that he could make a voluntary defense instead.

The IBF had no choice but to strip Fury. Had they allowed Fury to keep the title, Glazkov would have sued the IBF and won millions of dollars. There was absolutely no wiggle room. I know you don't like the facts. I know you don't like reality. Both of us would have preferred that the titles not be splintered, but the IBF had no choice and you've presented no evidence to suggest that they had a choice.

It's hilarious that you claim the WBO stated that Martin was not a top 10 heavyweight . . . because ***THE WBO HAD MARTIN RANKED #1***.

Again, ***THE WBO HAD MARTIN RANKED #1***.

#1.

#1.

The WBO had Martin ranked #1.

So for you to claim that they didn't have him in the top 10 just shows that you're making up your arguments as you go along and have no idea what you're talking about.

Btw, BoxingScene has Martin in the top 10 and so does Ring Magazine. TBRB has Martin in the top 10 as well.


Since you're so curious about my heavyweight rankings, here they are:


CHAMPION: TYSON FURY

#01 - Deontay Wilder
#02 - Wladimir Klitschko
#03 - Luis Ortiz
#04 - Alexander Povetkin
#05 - Kubrat Pulev
#06 - Charles Martin
#07 - Anthony Joshua
#08 - Ruslan Chagaev
#09 - Steve Cunningham
#10 - Bermane Stiverne

What, no Glazkov ?

You seem to forget, Martin was the opponent..... the underwhelming opponent, I might add.

They stripped Fury for GLAZKOV..... NOT for Martin.

Glazkov was the the IBF #1..... NOT Charles Martin.

And yet, Glazkov doesn't even make your list ?