Comments Thread For: WBA Aims To Continue Eliminating Titles, Start Drug Testing Policy

[original zero]

You have to admit though some of those rankings are so ridiculous that the media and fans can't help but ignore them.
Shannon Briggs at number 4 at HW comes to mind.

Fans should do whatever they please, but journalists have a responsibility to report news. Trying to pretend the orgs don't exist is what allowed the orgs to get away with being so corrupt. If you want to get rid of corruption, you have to shine a light on it, not ignore it.

But fans also have to understand that the rankings or the orgs are not world rankings, they are rankings for that org. So the WBA isn't saying Briggs is the #4 heavyweight in the world. They're saying he's the #4 heavyweight in the world who is currently fighting for the WBA and pursuing their title.

It's done a great disservice to the fans that the media (and the networks) haven't been more honest about why fights are taking place. The WBC, WBA, IBF and WBO are essentially leagues that fighters choose to fight for and when they don't get their way, they leave and go to another league.

If the media really wanted to clean up the sport, they would honestly cover everything that is going on, making it as difficult as possible for the orgs to get away with their shenanigans. When nobody is watching, you can be far more blatant.

[Gentblue]

This is one of the main problems on the Boxing Scene message board. People just constantly post false information with no repercussions.

The WBA has 33 world champions right now. A year ago they had 42. So we don't need Gentblue to hold his breath. We need him to stop flooding the site with false information.

33 right now because the 5 of ( possibly more)champs gave them up..... so the WBA didn't do crap they're champs did the work for them.

Defending the WBA doing nothing and posting info without all the facts or false info?


Project much?? Still not holding my breath.

[aboutfkntime]

About Time -

When you're resorting to unsourced wikipedia entries, you really show your ignorance. The NBA didn't just change its name in 1962. The entire structure was changed to try to create a new world entity.

The only problem is that the NBA's proposal was rejected by the BBBofC, EBU, NYSAC, etc, who in response to the NBA's attempt to create a world body joined up and created their own world body.

The membership of the NBA & WBA were not the same, nor were the voting structures. To credit the WBA with the NBA's history, you must also credit the WBC with the NYSAC/BBBofC/EBU/IBU/NSC history as well.

So no, the WBA did not exist long before the WBC as you claimed. As soon as the WBA was created, there was a revolt and the WBC was immediately created to compete with it.

you said this.....

" if you go that route, the WBC actually traces back further than the WBA "

1) the oldest is not necessarily the best..... insinuating such, is flawed logic

2) that comment..... is actually incorrect anyway

the point is this.....

1) you did NOBODY any favors, when you stated that "the WBC has always been the real deal"..... because aside from the fact that statement is inherently WRONG, the WBC has been involved in bribery and corruption since it's inception

and yes, the NBA has been involved with corruption / racketeering for much longer..... which I why I said that NONE of those organisations should - or could - possibly be ranked above another

2) NO boxing organisation has ever been definitive, let alone consistently correct..... so why recommend something that is PROVEN to be flawed?

The WBC ignored the WBA champ and heavyweight kingpin - Wladimir Klitschko - for about a DECADE..... they then suddenly, out of the blue, not only ranked the WBA champ Golovkin, but they mandated him to the WBC champ Canelo.....

..... are you trying to tell me they did that out of conscience?

[aboutfkntime]

Fans should do whatever they please, but journalists have a responsibility to report news. Trying to pretend the orgs don't exist is what allowed the orgs to get away with being so corrupt. If you want to get rid of corruption, you have to shine a light on it, not ignore it.

But fans also have to understand that the rankings or the orgs are not world rankings, they are rankings for that org. So the WBA isn't saying Briggs is the #4 heavyweight in the world. They're saying he's the #4 heavyweight in the world who is currently fighting for the WBA and pursuing their title.

It's done a great disservice to the fans that the media (and the networks) haven't been more honest about why fights are taking place. The WBC, WBA, IBF and WBO are essentially leagues that fighters choose to fight for and when they don't get their way, they leave and go to another league.

If the media really wanted to clean up the sport, they would honestly cover everything that is going on, making it as difficult as possible for the orgs to get away with their shenanigans. When nobody is watching, you can be far more blatant.

I agree, to a certain extent.....

I just don't understand how you could write that post, but then also recognize the 3x WBA "titles"?

rejecting the fact that the WBA recognize 3 different "champions" is your obligation as a reasonable human being, let alone as a boxing fan who claims to care about the sport

and the media should be hung for accepting that garbage

..... awarding/recognizing 3x WBA representatives chalking up "title" defences is beyond absurd..... I am aware that some "fans" will have no problem with that, but the boxing media should be held in disgrace..... the 2x additional WBA titlists should never have been recognized/accepted, BY ANYONE

[original zero]

About Time -

You post false information over and over and then just keep moving the goal posts. You were the one that said the WBA was much older than the WBC, which wasn't true. I simply pointed out that if you wanted to count the NBA lineage, you needed to count the EBU/IBU/NSC/NYSAC/BBBofC lineage as well, which means the WBC traces back further than the WBA.

But no matter how you slice it, the NYSAC & NBA launched months apart, just as the WBC & WBA launched months apart.

You try to attack the WBC for not recognizing Wladimir, without mentioning that their champion was Vitali, who most experts believed would beat Wladmimir. So the WBC actually had the superior champion. As they almost always have. Look at the history of heavyweight unification fights and the WBC's track record speaks for itself.

The WBC never ranked Golovkin. Golovkin won their interim title. Very different. As always, you don't have your facts straight. You just run your mouth and then make excuses when you're proven wrong over and over.

[Lou Cipher]

I just don't understand

yeah that's what happens when your Mom lets any swinging **** dump a load in her for a half pack of cigarettes and a swig of whiskey


[IMG]http://i.*****.com/3o6ZtpuoxIvh6aCLsc.gif[/IMG]

[Lou Cipher]

I am a big titted old man and I'm jealous of Lou Cipher's physical conditioning/stunning good looks and salty that Lou Cipher beat the dog crap out of Alfonso Gomez and devalued my autographed "the Contender" glove.

Stop crying you little B i t c h

[IMG]http://i.*****.com/3o6ZtpuoxIvh6aCLsc.gif[/IMG]

[aboutfkntime]

About Time -

You post false information over and over and then just keep moving the goal posts. You were the one that said the WBA was much older than the WBC, which wasn't true. I simply pointed out that if you wanted to count the NBA lineage, you needed to count the EBU/IBU/NSC/NYSAC/BBBofC lineage as well, which means the WBC traces back further than the WBA.

But no matter how you slice it, the NYSAC & NBA launched months apart, just as the WBC & WBA launched months apart.

You try to attack the WBC for not recognizing Wladimir, without mentioning that their champion was Vitali, who most experts believed would beat Wladmimir. So the WBC actually had the superior champion. As they almost always have. Look at the history of heavyweight unification fights and the WBC's track record speaks for itself.

The WBC never ranked Golovkin. Golovkin won their interim title. Very different. As always, you don't have your facts straight. You just run your mouth and then make excuses when you're proven wrong over and over.

listen here spastic.....

first you said..... "WBC has always been the real deal"..... well, that has been proven wrong

let the record show..... that was your premise, and your premise was wrong

FACT: the WBC has proven to be corrupt on numerous occasions..... so you did a real dumb thing when you recommended them to us.....

you wiki-searching fool, you had no idea that the WBA was a much older entity than the WBC..... insisting that they are only months apart in age is WRONG on more than 1 level..... so don't try to pull that stunt pal

I KNEW that was wrong, I did not need to search wiki

regarding the ABC bodies..... it is far more accurate to say that they are ALL badly flawed..... that NONE are definitive..... so therefore NONE of those asshat's should/could possibly be ranked above the other

when you recommended to us the biggest (and possibly smelliest) turd..... you proved why internet opinions should not be taken too seriously

and foolio, the WBC ranked/mandated Golovkin, despite refusing to rank/mandate the heavyweight kingpin Wlad Klitschko..... no amount of spin/bullshht will change that fact

[aboutfkntime]

yeah that's what happens when your Mom lets any swinging **** dump a load in her for a half pack of cigarettes and a swig of whiskey

your mom is a fkn idiot, that dumb b1tch should have just swallowed you..... or better yet, wiped you onto the dirty bed-sheets before her next "client" arrived





[IMG]https://media.*****.com/media/VhPYT75wUf1xS/*****.gif[/IMG]




[IMG]https://media.*****.com/media/3o6ZtouV0gdA7I7Xkk/*****.gif[/IMG]

[original zero]

I don't think there are many here that take About Time seriously, but for those that don't know any better, it's important to point out the inaccuracies in his posts.

The WBA & IBF have both been caught taking bribes and the WBO was created by the WBA's bribe taker. The WBC is the only organization that wasn't selling rankings. So when About Time says they've been proven corrupt on numerous occassions, it's incredibly misleading as it's actually the only organization that HASN'T had its corruption proven.

Even Thomas Hauser stuck up for the WBC in this regard, writing extensively in his 1986 book that despite whatever gripes people may have, all of his sources agreed that you couldn't buy WBC rankings. Sulaiman may have played favorites, but he could not be influenced by bribes because unlike the other orgs, the WBC didn't accept bribes.

Sulaiman was independently wealthy and genuinely cared about the health of the sport. There are many legitimate reasons to criticize the WBC, but About Time once again shows his ignorance when he claims their corruption has been proven on numerous occassions when it's actually the only group that hasn't had corruption proven.

About Time then once again falsely claims that the WBA is "much older" than the WBC, even though it's only a few months older. About Time is clearly unaware that the NBA and WBA were separate corporations, with the WBA claiming the NBA history, just as the WBC did with the NYSAC, IBU, NSC, etc.

He also insists the WBC ranked GGG, even though it isn't true and has been thoroughly debunked repeatedly. GGG, while unranked, fought the interim champion and defeated him. which is how he became the mandatory. He was never ranked.

Just like Kovalev fought the diamond champion to become the mandatory. Never ranked either.

I know it's not a big secret that About Time is a giant fool, but for those that don't know better, it's important to challenge About Time's lies.