Which World Title Is Most Worthless? IBF, WBC, IBO, WBO, WBA, The Ring?

[HanzGruber]

Why even include the ibo. They don't even count towards being undisputed

[original zero]

Source for this info please?

The IBF released a public statement after stripping Tyson Fury explaining why he was stripped. Here is a portion of the statement:

"Following the title fight between Klitschko and Fury, the IBF became aware for the first time that there was a contractual agreement between both fighters for an immediate rematch. There were no provisions for any rematch in the contracts which were submitted to the IBF prior to the IBF agreeing to sanction the Klitschko vs. Fury bout. Rule 3.B. of the IBF/USBA Rules Governing Championship Contests states: “No contract for a Championship contest shall contain any clause or any provision, whatsoever, guaranteeing or in any way assuring or promising either contestant a return Championship contest where such clause or provision interferes with the mandatory defense of a title.” Had the IBF been aware of a clause in the contract that violated this rule, the parties would have been mandated to agree in writing to stage this rematch after the completion of the IBF mandatory defense. If the parties did not agree, the title fight with Tyson Fury would not have been sanctioned by the IBF."

Also Glazkov is a nobody, they could've thrown some silencing cash at him which happens all the time in boxing.

IBF rules do not allow step aside agreements. If Glazkov did not enforce his position, the leading available contender would have become the mandatory. IBF rules are very clear. Once a year, the leading available contender receives a title shot. Period. Don't like it? Don't fight for the IBF.

Which is fine. I'm not saying anybody should fight for the IBF. Personally I'd like to see every org go out of business, so might as well start with the IBF.

But it's not fair to criticize them for stripping Fury when they had no other legal alternative. Glazkov's legal rights were clear cut. The IBF would have gotten spanked bad in court and Main Events most likely would have gotten a court injunction to block Klitschko-Fury II from taking place.

[original zero]

original zero can continue to defend these scumbags, but the fact remains that what the IBF did to Fury is bad for boxing. They stripped a legitimate champion to create another paper champion. Fury should've filmed a video of him dumping the belt in the toilet and curling one out on top of it.

Just because something is bad for boxing doesn't mean the IBF had a legal alternative. It's also interesting that you label the IBF as "scumbags" when they are, by far, the least corrupt of any of the orgs. So when the other orgs are 100x as scummy as the IBF, it's strange to single out the IBF.

I get it, you're butt hurt that your favorite fighter got stripped, but if a champion is refusing to face an overdue mandatory, what choice does the IBF have? The other orgs have clauses that allow them to make up the rules as they go along, but the IBF rules don't allow them to make things up as they go along. So there was no alternative but to strip Fury.

[NC Uppercut]

wow!!!

The answer is clearly the IBO. If all you have is an IBO title, the least amount of people are going to consider your fight a world championship match compared to just having one of the others or even Ring Magazine recognition (which some inexpeplicably still value despite it being owned by a promoter).

The original poster loses a lot of credibility choosing the IBF because they either know absolutely nothing about the sport or live in a bizarro universe if they think an IBO championship is more lucrative than an IBF championship.

Worse, the original poster's post is full of faulty logic and inaccuracies. The IBF had no choice but to strip Tyson Fury because the mandatory was OVERDUE and Fury had promised to face the mandatory next, only to secretly agree to a *voluntary* rematch clause.

Charles Martin was given a year to face his mandatory AFTER BEATING THE MANDATORY!!!

Had Fury beaten the IBF mandatory, he too would have been given a year. The IBF is *extremely* consistent with the enforcement of their rules, unlike any other sanctioning body.

I believe if the original poster analyzed the facts without bias, they would come to a far different conclusion.

Preach it bro! It's all the truth

[original zero]

IBF & WBC are very lenient when a fighter is singing their tune, but I voted all because they're all pretty worthless at the moment. I'd like to see one belt like UFC.

I agree that the WBC is very lenient with their favored fighters, but why do you feel that way about the IBF? The IBF seems to treat everyone identically, regardless of how big of a star they are (which is why the big stars avoid the IBF). Not sure how you could come to the conclusion that the IBF is lenient with ANYONE.

[Robbie Barrett]

Boxing fans complain about there being too many world titles but then add more by starting to accept the IBO.