How do you rank boxing organizations and why? WBA, WBC, IBF and WBO.

[BoliviaChiLEsp]

Which belt is the most prestigious for you?

In my opinion:

1-WBC
2-IBF
3-WBA
4-WBO



Nonetheless this is how I see today the landscape:

IBF: the only one that strips champions who don't fight their mandatories.

WBA: they have a lot of belts (Super Champion, Champion and Interim Champion). I do not like this concept at all.

WBC: if they allow another step aside for the Canelo-GGG fight they will loose a lot of my respect.

WBO: they do a decent work, after IBF I think they are the second best sanctioning organizations.



How do you see this?

[Robbie Barrett]

1.WBC - Held by many great champions, the belt every fighter wants.
2.IBF - Sticks to the rules but their rankings usually provide big mismatches.
2.WBO - Least prestigious, more of a European title.
4.WBA - 2 world champions a division? GTFO

[King_]

WBC is the most prestigious but up until some stuff recently (can't remember what exactly) I thought IBF was the best for a couple of years.

[Eff Pandas]

I view them as all equally corrupt &/or incompetent. You can say they all have done good things & obviously all have done bad things, but their combined biggest crime to me is devaluing what it means to be a champion with multiple titles & with an influx of unneeded (imo) weight divisions. And that makes ranking them seem like coming up with a nicest serial killer list.

[Rip Chudd]

I view them as all equally corrupt &/or incompetent. You can say they all have done good things & obviously all have done bad things, but their combined biggest crime to me is devaluing what it means to be a champion with multiple titles & with an influx of unneeded (imo) weight divisions. And that makes ranking them seem like coming up with a nicest serial killer list.

This^^^

How do you rank the lesser evil when they are all still evil

[BOXEO _]

[Caught Square]

WBC is the most prestigious but they're all pretty ****ed up.

IBF has bad rankings and mandatories but that's something that can be changed over time. Regular and super belts are unlikely to ever disappear since they can get more sanctioning fees.

I always liked the way the IBF stuck by their rules even for lucrative fighters, they are the most consistent with following the rules.

[BoliviaChiLEsp]

WBC is the most prestigious but they're all pretty ****ed up.

IBF has bad rankings and mandatories but that's something that can be changed over time. Regular and super belts are unlikely to ever disappear since they can get more sanctioning fees.

I always liked the way the IBF stuck by their rules even for lucrative fighters, they are the most consistent with following the rules.

Totally agree.

[Ryn0]

Just don't care anymore, there isn't a difference.

WBC is meant to be the most prestigious but none of their titleholders are the de facto no.1 in any division I can think of apart from Roman Gonzalez. Wilder? no, Garcia? no, Stevenson? no, Canelo? etc.

They're all interchangeable now, has been in my eyes for a very long time.

[GodOfBoxing]

I don't care to leave ALL my passion on this page, but....

I'm the most "qualified" person to talk this subject. People ("general rule") OFTEN\\ will Complain just for the sake of complaining and EVERYTHING HAS FAULT!
That said.
The three aught be considerd "equal". The individual boxer will make his/her won "mark"!
It's proper that the Ibo is excluded here.
John Wilkinson Founder and Secretary for the UWBCAFO-I. We work to ECHELON the SPORT!
iohnwilkinson04@iCloud.com OR...can bring it right here.
If you was to line them up line them up by WBC WBA IBF WBO 1-2-3-4. But, "value" even!
IBO The Worst Cancer of Boxing. No room for five groups! No need for FOUR, but.....that IS WHERE I am drawing the line.
UWBCAFO-I EST./March-2007.