Which World Title Is Most Worthless? IBF, WBC, IBO, WBO, WBA, The Ring?

[FlatLine]

Which of the current world titles do you value the least, and why?

I have to go with the IBF for a few stand-out discrepancies:

They stripped Fury of the belt only days after he beat Klitschko because Fury was obviously contractually obligated to rematch Klitschko instead of facing the IBF mandatory challenger immediately. They only took this action against Fury while other new champions have been given a year to face their mandatory.

They allowed Peterson to keep the IBF belt even though he admitted to cheating against Khan by using PEDs. The WBA did the right thing and stripped Peterson of their belt immediately but the corrupt IBF took no such action which means they basically announced to the world that anyone could cheat in a boxing match, get caught or admit to cheating, and still keep the title regardless.

Which world title do you think is most worthless, is there a single stand out, a few of them combined, or maybe all are just as bad as each other?

Who you got?

[RaTaTa]

We Be Crooks

[Caught Square]

The WBA 'Regular' is a joke of a belt.

[BKM-]

IBF clearly. I wonder if those morons ever responded to all the criticsm regarding their brainfart when it came to handling the Tyson Fury situation.

[original zero]

The answer is clearly the IBO. If all you have is an IBO title, the least amount of people are going to consider your fight a world championship match compared to just having one of the others or even Ring Magazine recognition (which some inexpeplicably still value despite it being owned by a promoter).

The original poster loses a lot of credibility choosing the IBF because they either know absolutely nothing about the sport or live in a bizarro universe if they think an IBO championship is more lucrative than an IBF championship.

Worse, the original poster's post is full of faulty logic and inaccuracies. The IBF had no choice but to strip Tyson Fury because the mandatory was OVERDUE and Fury had promised to face the mandatory next, only to secretly agree to a *voluntary* rematch clause.

Charles Martin was given a year to face his mandatory AFTER BEATING THE MANDATORY!!!

Had Fury beaten the IBF mandatory, he too would have been given a year. The IBF is *extremely* consistent with the enforcement of their rules, unlike any other sanctioning body.

I believe if the original poster analyzed the facts without bias, they would come to a far different conclusion.

[original zero]

IBF clearly. I wonder if those morons ever responded to all the criticsm regarding their brainfart when it came to handling the Tyson Fury situation.

If you knew and understood the facts of the situation, you would feel differently. Maybe you're a Tyson Fury fan, heard his side of the story, took it at face value and wanted to support the fighter you enjoy. That's fine.

But the truth is that the IBF had no choice but to strip Tyson Fury. The IBF mandatory was overdue before Fury ever fought Klitschko. Klitschko would have been stripped of the IBF title, but Klitschko & Fury promised the IBF that the winner would face the IBF mandatory next.

Since Fury was the WBO mandatory, IBF rules allowed him to fight for the title first on the condition that the winner would face the overdue mandatory next.

After Klitschko & Fury promised the IBF that the winner would face their mandatory next, they secretly negotiated a voluntary rematch clause and hid the clause from the IBF to trick the IBF into sanctioning their first fight.

When Fury won the title, he had now promised to fight Glazkov and also promised to fight Klitschko. There was no way to keep both promises.

However, the IBF had promised Glazkov a shot since March. With Fury breaking ihs promise, the IBF legally had no choice but to strip him as Glazkov's legal rights were being infringed and his promoter would have had an open and shut case in court against the IBF if they blew off their obligation to Glazkov.

So while it was an unfortunate set of circumstances, it's not fair to blame the IBF for stripping Fury because they had no other legal alternative. Obviously the IBF would have made a LOT MORE MONEY sanctioning the Fury/Klitschko rematch, but their hands were tied by the long overdue obligation to Glazkov.

[BKM-]

After Klitschko & Fury promised the IBF that the winner would face their mandatory next, they secretly negotiated a voluntary rematch clause and hid the clause from the IBF to trick the IBF into sanctioning their first fight.

Source for this info please?

Also Glazkov is a nobody, they could've thrown some silencing cash at him which happens all the time in boxing.

[denium]

original zero can continue to defend these scumbags, but the fact remains that what the IBF did to Fury is bad for boxing. They stripped a legitimate champion to create another paper champion. Fury should've filmed a video of him dumping the belt in the toilet and curling one out on top of it.

[Lester Tutor]

doesn't Charlie Zelenoff have an IBO?

[fanofslug]

IBF & WBC are very lenient when a fighter is singing their tune, but I voted all because they're all pretty worthless at the moment. I'd like to see one belt like UFC.