is WBC the most prestigious belt/credible organisation still?

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

I like the IBF as they enforce mandatories and don’t let champs go years without facing mandatories, like the WBC..

Just a shame their mandatories are often not very good.

I do and I don’t. Like the IBF forcing Brook to fight Spence was great but then the IBF mandating Brook to face Bizier and JoJo Dan was terrible.

If they improved their general standard of mandatories I’d be all for it.

In recent years they’ve probably been the least corrupt of the four. No secondary belt, rarely any interim champions.

[Cobra Curry]

The WBC is the "glamour" belt and probably always will be. They've marketed themselves very well for a long time now. How that correlates to prestige is up to the individual.

The WBA actually has at least as much history, going back to the NBA/NYSAC days.

They're both a bit ****e though.

[Ray*]

They were never the most prestigious belt, no one can tell us why they are, the facts are the WBA is the oldest belt, held by all the greats.

So if we are going to annoy any belt then it would be the WBA, the fact that the WBC has no rules shows they are the worse.

[daggum]

the wbc has a long history...of corruption.

[techliam]

Their mandatories are some of the WORST. And 99% of the time they leave #1 and #2 spot open.

I like their same day weight though. Too bad Jacobs had to CHEAT and *** that up...

Just wondering, do you know why they have the spots vacant?

There’s a reason, but just interested to know if you actually know why

[Shadoww702]

Just wondering, do you know why they have the spots vacant?

There’s a reason, but just interested to know if you actually know why

For sale! It sure is not because they deserve it.

[techliam]

It still is IMO. Holding the WBC heavyweight title and that’s the same belt Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes etc held.

Holding the WBO title and that’s the same belt Herbie Hide and Michael Bentt held.

I know they’re extreme examples but the WBC has the most prestigious lineage, then the WBA, then the IBF then the WBO.

In terms of credibility as an organisation they’re all pretty low as they’re all corrupt but I’d say the WBA and WBC often sink the lowest.

Virtually all of the great heavyweights also held the WBA title. The exception is Holmes but Wlad Klitschko never held the WBC either

I don’t think there’s a great deal separating them, enough to say one is more prestigious than the other

[techliam]

For sale! It sure is not because they deserve it.

It’s actually because eliminators need to happen to fill those spots (in nearly all cases)

Fighters generally go for easier title shots instead of solely going through the IBF

But I think of it this way... if the IBF was the only sanctioning body, the sport would actually have rules, and mandatories/eliminators would actually mean something

[Zaroku]

... WBC isn't less or more than the other belts...

I remember when the WBA, and the IBF came out, then later the WBO.

I don’t know alphabet belts or their value, but I like seeing two guys give it their all and shake hands after.

Hope you are well my brother!

[Zelda]

I know Mauricio and the WBC are hated by the Brits, but it has still got a more credible ranking. Others are an absolute joke.

For instance, the WBA has Manuel Charr and Trevor Byan above the likes of Wilder, Ruiz Jr, Parker, etc. To them, neither Dillian nor Povetkin is a top 10 fighter. Charles Martin is better than most.