Even the Brits admit Wilder has the most Prestigious belt

[Holler]

Several factors influence the prestige of a particular belt. The history of past champions and the fights they undertook to win or defend it, some of which WBC/A/F has mentioned above. None of this is within the holders control. On this I'd say he makes a strong case for the WBC belt being the most prestigious. It has the connection with Ali, the iconic green looks and inasmuch as any of these organisations are anything but cynical money making enterprises serving the needs of boxing promoters and broadcasters, it has at least as long a history as it's chief competitor and greater antecedents than the likes of Johnny come lately, WBO.

Then there's the behaviour of the issueing body itself. Do they conduct themselves in the way that a responsible, impartial steward of the sports good name would be expected to? Do their rankings accurately reflect the true quality of the division? Do they operate a transparent rankings and mandatory system free from interference or manipulation? Are officials linked with them free from corruption? Do they enforce anti doping measures etc. Again outside a holders control, but all factors which influence the prestige of a belt. There are questions to be asked here obviously, but they can also be levelled at the other issueing bodies to greater or lesser extent.

Finally is the most important factor of them all, which is how the holder behaves once they win the belt. Do they fight the best challengers or do they milk the belt and their fans by fighting second rate opposition? Does their conduct befit that of a champion? Are the statements they make likely to show boxing in its best light or bring it down into disrepute?

It's that third factor where Wilder has a question to answer. Has he increased or decreased the prestige of that belt since he took it? Vitali Klitschko did, I'm not sure Wilder can say the same.

[Ray*]

Of course its the top belt lol. I thought we don't know boxing and we just back anything Hearn... Yeah it doesn't work like that.

[R_Walken]

From a ignorant opinionated fans perspective


The WBC is the most prestigious. For me It goes

1) WBC
2a&b) WBA / IBF
Distant 4th ) WBO

All belts have their own problems. The WBC bends over backwards for the stars. WBA have too many belts and don’t seem to have a set of rules they follow, IBF follows their rules to a T , which in some cases is a detriment to the sport and more often then not makes known fighters not want to ranked by them which creates disgusting mandos.

The WBO is controlled by Arum / Warren and what ever is left over are given to HBO affiliates and at this point to me is on the verge of IBO territory as far as irrelevance . If you look at the WBO strap holders from 126-HW 5/10 are held by TR or Warren fighters , 2 are HBO affiliates .the remaining straps were either recently held by TR / Warren fighters, HWs was with TR ( Parker whonthey had options on i believe ) until he lost to AJ , Flanagan ( Warren ) had the 135 until he vacated and then lost his chance for the 140 strap when he lost to Hooker. Usyk who I believe is K2 but not tied down to HBO is the only fighter not closely aligned with TR/Warren/HBO

[LacedUp]

Give Wilder 50-50 straight away then! He's the guy who's basically made the WBC belt what it is.

Masterful defenses against Washington and Szpilka created the green belts legacy

[LacedUp]

WBA is older by a few months, but "WBA" and "WBC" were really just fresh coats of paint on already existing titles and the WBC's lineage traces back much further and to much more important belts.

The WBA was a reboot of the NBA, which originally was just a few smaller US states who didn't like that New York controlled the world title. So they banded together to create a rival title. But the NBA title never achieved the recognition that the NYSAC title did. The NYSAC was considered the real belt of the two.

But even predating the NYSAC was the IBU, out of Europe, which goes all the way back to the early 1900s. The IBU is the oldest world title that still lives on today in some form. Eventually the IBU accepted that the NYSAC belt is what had the most recognition, so the IBU stopped sanctioning "world titles" and rebooted as the EBU, focusing on European titles.

When the WBC was formed by the EBU (which was really the IBU tracing back to 1910), the BBBoC, and all of the major boxing countries of the world, it was actually the world coming together for the first time ever to try to recognize one world champion. This was done as a response to the NBA trying to expand as the WBA.

But the NYSAC was still the most respected belt. So it was critical for the WBC's acceptance when the NYSAC agreed to join the EBU, BBBoC, and commissions from all over the world to unify and recognize one true world champion, the WBC champion.

The WBC champion of today has the historical recognition that traces all the way back to the NYSAC and IBU titles that were the real world titles of boxing over a century ago.

The WBA, IBF or WBO champion of today holds one third of the lesser regarded title that simply made you the champion of a few US states that were mad that NY controlled the world title.

Even if you wanted to make the case that the WBC & WBA were equal in the 60s, that would still mean a unifed WBA/IBF/WBO champion would hold 50% of the world title while the WBC champion holds the other 50%. But even that is being genersou to the WBA/IBF/WBO because the WBC title merged the NYSAC & IBU titles, which were more widely recognized than the NBA.

So if we're being honest, that would mean the WBC champion has two thirds of the lineage, while a WBA, IBF or WBO champion only has one third of the remaining third.

Deontay Wilder's lineage as a champion starts and stops with Bermane Stiverne

[Laligalaliga]

Rather it's the most corrupt belt.

[Laligalaliga]

WBA is older by a few months, but "WBA" and "WBC" were really just fresh coats of paint on already existing titles and the WBC's lineage traces back much further and to much more important belts.

The WBA was a reboot of the NBA, which originally was just a few smaller US states who didn't like that New York controlled the world title. So they banded together to create a rival title. But the NBA title never achieved the recognition that the NYSAC title did. The NYSAC was considered the real belt of the two.

But even predating the NYSAC was the IBU, out of Europe, which goes all the way back to the early 1900s. The IBU is the oldest world title that still lives on today in some form. Eventually the IBU accepted that the NYSAC belt is what had the most recognition, so the IBU stopped sanctioning "world titles" and rebooted as the EBU, focusing on European titles.

When the WBC was formed by the EBU (which was really the IBU tracing back to 1910), the BBBoC, and all of the major boxing countries of the world, it was actually the world coming together for the first time ever to try to recognize one world champion. This was done as a response to the NBA trying to expand as the WBA.

But the NYSAC was still the most respected belt. So it was critical for the WBC's acceptance when the NYSAC agreed to join the EBU, BBBoC, and commissions from all over the world to unify and recognize one true world champion, the WBC champion.

The WBC champion of today has the historical recognition that traces all the way back to the NYSAC and IBU titles that were the real world titles of boxing over a century ago.

The WBA, IBF or WBO champion of today holds one third of the lesser regarded title that simply made you the champion of a few US states that were mad that NY controlled the world title.

Even if you wanted to make the case that the WBC & WBA were equal in the 60s, that would still mean a unifed WBA/IBF/WBO champion would hold 50% of the world title while the WBC champion holds the other 50%. But even that is being genersou to the WBA/IBF/WBO because the WBC title merged the NYSAC & IBU titles, which were more widely recognized than the NBA.

So if we're being honest, that would mean the WBC champion has two thirds of the lineage, while a WBA, IBF or WBO champion only has one third of the remaining third.

All these history are in the past. As for me, IBO has the best ranking at the moment.
All 5 belts are major and carry almost equal significance.
One can't hide under one green belt to want to claim equity.
If you want equity, you should have gone for other belts before it was racked up by a single man.

[Armchairhero]

I wonder if in my life time we will ever get 1 champ at each weight, all the different orgs make a joke of the sport

[Laligalaliga]

Deontay Wilder's lineage as a champion starts and stops with Bermane Stiverne

Stirverne is a bum himself. Would love to see him fight Martin.

[_Rexy_]

All these history are in the past. As for me, IBO has the best ranking at the moment.
All 5 belts are major and carry almost equal significance.
One can't hide under one green belt to want to claim equity.
If you want equity, you should have gone for other belts before it was racked up by a single man.

There’s so much wrong with this...