Boxing fans need to accept reality.

[Jax teller]

No, it was almost a month. He wasn't training when he accepted the offer. The injury occurred in training.

The injury occurred twelve weeks before the training camp according to Wilder.

[Jax teller]

That isn’t avoiding a double standard, that is not calling your countryman out hoping the ukad would do what suiliman did for canelo.

Wtf you talking about I said it's wrong what they did not notify Rivas.

But I didn't pretend to know the results like you lot screaming "b-sample! b-sample or he's guilty!" After they had said they're not dis*****g findings so there is no point in b-sample but they are dis*****g there was no way he was juicing or had any gained anything accidental due to levels of the metabolites and the timing of the VADA tests he passed either side.

Either the levels were ******ly low even for accidental consumption or they paid UKAD off. I ain't gonna pretend to know.

[N/A]

The injury occurred twelve weeks before the training camp according to Wilder.

He accepted the Joshua fight six months before he ended up fighting Fury.

[N/A]

1) FACT: the WBC are not definitive... in plenty of divisions, they do not rank the top fighter

There are four major leagues in boxing. All favored by different promoters. In boxing, you can't expect one league to have the top fighter in every division.

But you are determined to insist all belts have the same value and should command equal respect. That's just not how the sport is though.

So yes, you are correct, there is no definitive belt in boxing, but Wimbledon is still more prestigious than the Australian open, even though they're both grand slams.

If you look at the top fighter in each division in the TBRB ratings, here's how many of the top fighters hold a title from each of the organizations:

WBC - *12* champions are the top fighter in the TBRB ratings.

WBA - 5

IBF - 3

WBO - 2


When one organizations has the top fighter in 12 divisions and another only has the top fighter in 2 divisions, you can't keep pretending that the organizations are equal.

[aboutfkntime]

There are four major leagues in boxing. All favored by different promoters. In boxing, you can't expect one league to have the top fighter in every division.

But you are determined to insist all belts have the same value and should command equal respect. That's just not how the sport is though.

So yes, you are correct, there is no definitive belt in boxing, but Wimbledon is still more prestigious than the Australian open, even though they're both grand slams.

If you look at the top fighter in each division in the TBRB ratings, here's how many of the top fighters hold a title from each of the organizations:

WBC - *12* champions are the top fighter in the TBRB ratings.

WBA - 5

IBF - 3

WBO - 2


When one organizations has the top fighter in 12 divisions and another only has the top fighter in 2 divisions, you can't keep pretending that the organizations are equal.

that is simply not true

like I told you... flawed logic there

FACT: the fighter makes the belt... NOT the other way around

you, telling me that Nordine Oubaali is a better bantamweight than Inoue... simply because Oubaali holds the WBC strap... is shockingly incorrect... and if you tell me that there are exceptions, then you just shot yourself in the foot

there are MANY other current examples, and dozens throughout history

and like I told you on the other thread, the WBC currently have 5 champions who are ranked #1... not 12... no idea where you got that number from... Menayothin, Estrada, Berchelt, Spence, Beterbiev

[N/A]

the fighter makes the belt... NOT the other way around

Yes, but not in a vacuum. So over time, a series of fighters end up making a belt as well. You can't say the fighter makes the belt and then ignore decades of fighters making a belt. When George Foreman was unified WBU/IBA heavyweight champion, that didn't mean the WBU and IBA belts were suddenly recognized world championships.

you, telling me that Nordine Oubaali is a better bantamweight than Inoue

No. Stop being so pedantic. Every single WBC champion at all times doesn't have to be better than every single WBO at all times in order for there to be a historical pattern that the WBC has had stronger champions than the WBO overall.

and like I told you on the other thread, the WBC currently have 5 champions who are ranked #1... not 12

You're wrong.

http://www.tbrb.org/all-rankings/

Heavyweight: Deontay Wilder (WBC World Champion)
Cruiserweight: Mairis Briedis (WBC Diamond Champion)
Light Heavyweight: Artur Beterbiev (WBC World Champion)
Super Middleweight: Callum Smith (WBC Diamond Champion)
Middleweight: Canelo Alvarez (WBC Franchise Champion)
Welterweight: Errol Spence (WBC World Champion)
Lightweight: Vasiliy Lomachenko (WBC Franchise Champion)
Super Featherweight: Miguel Berchelt (WBC World Champion)
Super Bantamweight: Rey Vargas* (WBC World Champion)
Super Flyweight: Juan Francisco Estrada (WBC World Champion)
Light Flyweight: Kenshiro Teraji (WBC World Champion)
Minimumweight: Wanheng Menayothin (WBC World Champion)

*Guillermo Rigondeaux has left the division, Rey Vargas rated #1.


The top fighter in 12 of 17 divisions in boxing's most respected ratings, TBRB, is a WBC champion. Only 2 of the 17 are WBO champions. Stop acting like the WBC and WBO are equals. One was a worldwide unification of the sport's most respected and prestigious titles (NYSAC, IBU & NSC) and the other was invented out of thin air after the leader of the WBA's bribery ring was banned for life by the WBA for taking bribes, so he had to start his own organization the WBO.