Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why are the IBF rankings so horrible?

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Derevyanchenko and Ocampo are utter mistakes that the IBF brought to mandatory. One day fighters won't need these fraud organizations for fighters to make their claim as a true champion.

    Comment


    • #12
      The IBF follows their rules to the T

      And don’t play favourites with fighters that are established

      While great in theory in means established names are less likely to be ranked by them because they know they don’t have a problem jerking them around

      It also means it leaves the door open for fighters who shouldn’t be ranked to be ranked by them

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by Jsmooth9876 View Post
        Funny it's that way because they're about the only ones who enforce mandatory fights the way they should be.

        But it's a list of guys you've never heard of and when they get their title chance they usually get blown out.
        Haha, but yea thats boxing for you. The people "doing the right thing" this way are f#cking it up some other way so it crosses itself off to even again any damn way.

        Would be cool if the IBF had legit rankings & the other groups enforced mandatories. That would be a good start for these corrupt &/or ****** mfers if they ever wanna go legit.

        Comment


        • #14
          All of the alphabet groups have horrible rankings and their rankings are completely different from each other. A boxer could be ranked 1st or 2nd by two groups and not even make the top 15 by the other two groups.Sometimes the number 1 contender will be some guy most boxing fans never heard of with 8 wins from outer Mongolia or the Belgian Congo.

          Comment


          • #15
            Does anyone know how these fighters get ranked on any of these orgs lists?
            Like is it based on a point system or a who you fought system.
            Im quite new to boxing and dont have any idea.

            Comment


            • #16
              Maybe it's a change of tack from the corruption of the 80's, 90's and early 00's, which was exposed mid 2000's?
              They got caught red handed and appear to be on the straight and narrow in the aftermath of it all.

              Ibf do the wrong thing (crap mandatories, stripping champs) for the right reason (keeping to their rules, no favouritism)

              wbc do the right thing (always make the biggest fights) for the wrong reason (greedy mfers, trying to rule boxing instead of serving it).


              I will elaborate for the boxing philosphers, otherwise stop reading now...

              If someone had a knife to your mums throat and you had a gun and could save your mum, would you?
              Of course you would, but shooting the man is the wrong thing to do though and you should never shoot someone.
              We have a situation whereby you can do the wrong thing (shoot someone) but for the right reason (save mother).

              Conversely, if you decided NOT to shoot an estranged man who had a knife to your mums throat (doing the right thing), and let him kill and innocent woman, also your mother, just so you won't get in trouble with the police (wrong reason).

              That's my view on the difference between ibf and the wbc.

              Comment


              • #17
                Every sanctioning bodie's rankings are a joke.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by Rock&Roll View Post
                  Maybe it's a change of tack from the corruption of the 80's, 90's and early 00's, which was exposed mid 2000's?
                  They got caught red handed and appear to be on the straight and narrow in the aftermath of it all.

                  Ibf do the wrong thing (crap mandatories, stripping champs) for the right reason (keeping to their rules, no favouritism)

                  wbc do the right thing (always make the biggest fights) for the wrong reason (greedy mfers, trying to rule boxing instead of serving it).


                  I will elaborate for the boxing philosphers, otherwise stop reading now...

                  If someone had a knife to your mums throat and you had a gun and could save your mum, would you?
                  Of course you would, but shooting the man is the wrong thing to do though and you should never shoot someone.
                  We have a situation whereby you can do the wrong thing (shoot someone) but for the right reason (save mother).

                  Conversely, if you decided NOT to shoot an estranged man who had a knife to your mums throat (doing the right thing), and let him kill and innocent woman, also your mother, just so you won't get in trouble with the police (wrong reason).

                  That's my view on the difference between ibf and the wbc.
                  You're right, but there's another perspective too.

                  The WBA and WBC are long established, and do not need to justify their existence. Their ties with regional and national bodies, along with ties with major promoters (or whatever else they call themselves nowadays) will always be there.

                  It leaves the IBF and WBO in a difficult spot really. Between them, the WBC/WBA could mop up most of the relevant champions with their lax (and probably corrupt) ways, leaving little to maintain the legitimacy of the IBF/WBO. The WBO doubled down on latching onto certain promoters, which has kinda watered down the title. The IBF went a different route, the only way it could after it was put under federal investigation. The problem it has, is that high earning fighters can expect to be pampered by the WBC/WBA, (or the WBO if a Warren/Top Rank fighter), so there's little need to fight for the IBF title, especially with its added stipulations.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by BLASTER1 View Post
                    Does anyone know how these fighters get ranked on any of these orgs lists?
                    Like is it based on a point system or a who you fought system.
                    Im quite new to boxing and dont have any idea.
                    For all 4 major bodies, the committee decides. In the case of the WBC/WBA, i'm fairly sure their ranking committees are completely subservient to the President so there's no point in pretending its impartial. They do have a 'scientific' method for rankings fighters (like beating rank 5 puts you up so many, etc) but it's not consistently followed.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by .!WAR MIKEY! View Post
                      arent they computer generated?
                      That's IBO. IBF is that sick looking red belt.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP