Which current Heavyweight champion is most legitimate?

[Larry the boss]

We shall find out when they all finish fighting each other

[Kezzer]

Probably AJ due to his having 2 belts although Wilder's is the most prestigious.

Why is the WBC considered most prestigious? I don't know the history but I always thought the main 4 were considered similar with Joshua's extra "fifth" belt not always considered (unless your a Eubank).

[Larry the boss]

AJ. He took the title from Wlad the right way. But to be truly legit he needs to beat Fury.

what title did he take from Wlad?? last I checked Wlad was coming off of a loss and a layoff

[N/A]

I keep hearing this, but never seen a genuine defence of this argument

Well I'm always very happy to answer any questions you may have about the sanctioning bodies.

How is the WBC belt more prestigious than say the WBA belt?

The most simple answer is that you have to look at where the belts came from. The National Sporting Club in England was established in the 1890s and began recognizing champions in the early 1900s. The NSC later re-configures as the BBBoC. The IBU in Europe was established in 1910 and began recognizing champions the next year. The IBU later re-configures as the EBU. The NYSAC was established in 1920 and began recognizing champions the next year. These are three of the founding organizations that joined together to recognize one world champion by establishing the World Boxing Council.

The NYSAC was already more prestigious than the NBA (which later re-configures as the WBA). The 13 states that founded the NBA to try to minimize the NYSAC's power couldn't change the fact that the most lucrative fights were happening in New York and the public recognized the NYSAC title as the true heavyweight championship of the world. When the WBC brings together the NYSAC, EBU IBU), BBBoC (NSC) and many more to crown one champion, the WBC championship instantly had more credibility than the WBA championship because the WBC championship was founded by oldest and most respected organizations joining together.

History's greats have nearly all held the WBA belt, if not more than the WBC.

The WBC & WBA are obviously the most prestigious titles as they are the two that trace back the furthest, but the WBC traces back further and to more credible organizations, in addition to the fact that when the WBC heavyweight champion has fought the WBA heavyweight champion, the WBC has been proven to be superior every time.

When the world recognized Muhammad Ali as champion, the WBA anointed Ernie Terrell instead, but what happened when they fought to unify the title? WBC champion Muhammad Ali completely dominated WBA champion Ernie Terrell. It was clearer than ever which was the superior title.

When Muhammad Ali was in exile with legal problems, the WBA was the first to strip him. After already stripping previously, which of course ended in him dominating their champion. The WBC was the last to strip him after inactivity dragged on for years. The WBA quickly crowned a new champion (Jimmy Ellis), while the NYSAC, which later merged their title with the WBC, crowned Joe Frazier. When Frazier and Ellis met to unify the titles, once again the WBA champion was dominated. The NYSAC/WBC title continued to establish its superiority to the NBA/WBA title.

Now we get to the late 70s and 80s, where your argument really starts to fall apart, because WBC champion Larry Holmes was head and shoulders above Tate, Weaver, Dokes, Coetzee, etc, further cementing in the eyes of the public that the WBC title was the true world heavyweight championship. Holmes never holding the WBA title ruins your claim that all the greats held it, because it's simply not true. Go through the WBA heavyweight title history and over and over again you see that the NYSAC/WBC title is clearly a level above the NBA/WBA.

We continue into the 80s and finally the WBC heavyweight champion is set to fight the WBA heavyweight champion. WBC champion Mike Tyson dominates and wins a lopsided decision over WBA champion James Smith.

A decade goes by before the WBC heavyweight champion fights the WBA heavyweight champion again, but this time, WBC champion Mike Tyson knocks out WBA champion Bruce Seldon in one round. Keeping the NYSAC/WBC's undefeated streak alive against the NBA/WBA in heavyweight title fights.

Now, you may bring up that Tyson relinquished the WBC title shortly thereafter, but this was to blatantly duck Lennox Lewis, just like when Rid**** Bowe relinquished the WBC title to blatantly duck Lennox Lewis.

So was the WBC correct that Lewis was the best in the world? We get to find out because when Lewis as WBC champion finally fought the WBA champion Evander Holyfield, although the first fight as ruled a draw despite Lewis dominating, Lewis won the rematch, proving once again, over and over and over, that the NYSAC/WBC heavyweight title is the top title, and keeping the undefeated streak in tact against the NBA/WBA.

Then you get into the doldrums of the Klitschko era, where you have dominant WBC and WBA champions, but they're brothers and they won't fight each other. So we'll never know for certain who was better, but most of the world's leading experts considered Vitali, the WBC champion, the superior fighter and Vitali would have been the betting favorite over Wladimir had the WBC and WBA champions fought each other.

Yes the WBA have given us two champions per division, but anyone worth their salt only recognise their Super belt, which we should use to monitor the WBA lineage. The two belts scenario isn't a stain on the WBA World Championship

Shouldn't be a stain? OF COURSE IT SHOULD BE A STAIN. The WBA can't even agree on who their champion is, you expect the world to give their split title more credibility than the WBC belt? Ali, Frazier, Tyson, Holyfield, Lewis, etc where champions of the WORLD, not champions of the SUPER. The WBA title is an absolute mess until the super titles are eliminated and the WBA has proven over and over to be an absolute joke in terms of the credibility of their titles.

Especially in today's Boxing, where we have 4 belts of equal reward..

But they're not equal and you only have 4 belts because the WBA keeps dividing itself. When you win the WBC title, you win the NSC, IBU & NYSAC lineage dating back 100+ years. The WBA has split so many times, that you have to unify the WBA, IBF & WBO belts just to win the NBA lineage, and even still you'd only be WBA super champion, you wouldn't actually be the WBA world champion because they'd strip you for trying to unify their splintered titles.

The NBA/WBA is a mess and has always been a mess, which is why the IBF split off, the WBO split off, etc. Meanwhile, the WBC is the only one of the four that's never had a bribery scandal, never had a civil war at their convention resulting in the splitting off of a new organization, etc. You're simply not paying attention to the sport's history if you think the WBA title is as important as the WBC.

[Gillie]

Why is the WBC considered most prestigious? I don't know the history but I always thought the main 4 were considered similar with Joshua's extra "fifth" belt not always considered (unless your a Eubank).

Traditionally the WBA, WBC and IBF titles were the big boys on the block with the WBO gaining some momentum but still outside the big three. That said, I have always seen the green belt as the main money maker but truth be told, it may not be anymore. I think that it was probably considered the most prestigious at one point simply due to the champions associated with it but this is really all subjective. I wouldn't get the farm on it, let's put it that way.

[chrisJS]

Joshua
Fury
Parker

[Kezzer]

Traditionally the WBA, WBC and IBF titles were the big boys on the block with the WBO gaining some momentum but still outside the big three. That said, I have always seen the green belt as the main money maker but truth be told, it may not be anymore. I think that it was probably considered the most prestigious at one point simply due to the champions associated with it but this is really all subjective. I wouldn't get the farm on it, let's put it that way.

Thanks. I actually read the little boy who claims to have worked for three organisations response first, he quickly became very bias and clearly and load of bs. I therefore did some research.

The WBA is infact the original, founded in 1962. The WBC was formed a year later. The latter was seen to adapt much quicker to change/innovation (eg intro of 12 rounder, accidental foul rule).

IBF founded in 1983 and WBO 1988 for info.

NYSAC was formed in 1920 before all of these but related to New York only and wasn’t just boxing - it included wrestling and martial arts for instance. This effectively was the organisation that turned into WBC in 1963, in reacting to the the forming of the WBA. Fundamentally it was different though as prior to then it was only a local New York body so can hardly be classed as a world sanctioning body and obviously turned into a boxing specific organisation. In addition to that it was created in a partnership with other countries (including Uk), it was therefore basically completely new.

Similarly the WBA formed from the NBA (which formed same head as the NYSAC). Again only an American thing though until the point of formation but covered multiple states. There was no merge with other organisations when name change dto WBA but it simple became global status.




As an overall the only way WBC can truly be ranked higher is based on champions it has had, that is subjective as people can choose specific categories etc which suit their arguement. On balance it would appear both WBA and WBC are equally historic but overtime all four belts have become of similar standard and importance to all fighters.

[club fighter]

Shannon Briggs has a punchers chance against any of them ...................

........ LET'S GO CHAMP!!!

[N/A]

Thanks. I actually read the little boy who claims to have worked for three organisations response first, he quickly became very bias and clearly and load of bs. I therefore did some research.

Why are you blatantly lying? This account is operated by three people who happen to have experience dealing with sanctioning bodies. None of us work for them, each of us just happens to have a friendly relationship with one of the sanctioning body presidents, which is why we created this account to answer questions about the sanctioning bodies.

We've been researching the sanctioning bodies for several decades and your quick google search is unlikely going to give you the grasp of the history and nuance that we have, but we're happy to read what your limited research has turned up.

The WBA is infact the original, founded in 1962. The WBC was formed a year later.

Technically true, but extremely misleading because even if you want to judge things based on the current WBC/WBA initials, the WBC title is still older. The first WBC heavyweight champion was Sonny Liston in 1963. The first WBA heavyweight champion was Ernie Terrell in 1965.

If you try to stretch things back to the NBA, then it's only fair to also stretch things back to the NSC, IBU & NYSAC, in which case the WBC title is still older. Not only older, but essentially a merger of all of the major world titles except for the NBA, which was never as big as the NYSAC anyway.

NYSAC was formed in 1920 before all of these but related to New York only and wasn’t just boxing - it included wrestling and martial arts for instance.

And the NBA sanctioned wrestling as well. All the state commissions regulated wrestling back then. What's your point?

This effectively was the organisation that turned into WBC in 1963, in reacting to the the forming of the WBA.

You're just reading wikipedia without any understanding of the situation. The WBC was a true coalition of countries from around the world joining together to create a true world championship. The EBU, BBBoC, NYSAC and countless others joining forces to all agree on one champion. There are only so many titles now because the WBA keeps getting divorced. The WBC is still the same title it's always been. Now you have to unify the WBA/IBF/WBO to actually hold the NBA lineage, whereas the WBC is all you need to hold the IBU/NYSAC/NSC/etc lineage. There's no comparison.

[Gillie]

Thanks. I actually read the little boy who claims to have worked for three organisations response first, he quickly became very bias and clearly and load of bs. I therefore did some research.

The WBA is infact the original, founded in 1962. The WBC was formed a year later. The latter was seen to adapt much quicker to change/innovation (eg intro of 12 rounder, accidental foul rule).

IBF founded in 1983 and WBO 1988 for info.

NYSAC was formed in 1920 before all of these but related to New York only and wasn’t just boxing - it included wrestling and martial arts for instance. This effectively was the organisation that turned into WBC in 1963, in reacting to the the forming of the WBA. Fundamentally it was different though as prior to then it was only a local New York body so can hardly be classed as a world sanctioning body and obviously turned into a boxing specific organisation. In addition to that it was created in a partnership with other countries (including Uk), it was therefore basically completely new.

Similarly the WBA formed from the NBA (which formed same head as the NYSAC). Again only an American thing though until the point of formation but covered multiple states. There was no merge with other organisations when name change dto WBA but it simple became global status.




As an overall the only way WBC can truly be ranked higher is based on champions it has had, that is subjective as people can choose specific categories etc which suit their arguement. On balance it would appear both WBA and WBC are equally historic but overtime all four belts have become of similar standard and importance to all fighters.

Thanks much for that bro. Definitely an interesting history behind it. I had no idea that the WBC was born of the NYSAC. Peace.