Tweet
Boxing is rather unique in the fact our champions come from 4 (excluding RING) bodies, a really messy affair especially to those coming to boxing for the first time - it is very confusing.
Many people say all sanctioning bodies are corrupt and are in there for the money, hands down. I'd say there is truth in that somewhat, these bodies need money to survive of course, though it is obvious that corruption is absolutely rampant within the WBA and WBC.
Froch's win last night got me thinking about the IBF. There was utter scandal with the IBF I believe in the 90s, (and early 00s?) of corruption, however since then there has been top down reorganisation of this body. Whilst not the most legitimate body (ie most true champions dont have this belt) I believe it is least corrupt body, and has done at least some justice for boxing with its cloudly championship scene.
Why I think that? The IBF have a number of points in its favour:
-It has a weigh-in on the day of the fight, which to me is great for all weight classes (excl heavyweight) since it lessens the advantages fighters may get for putting weight on between the weigh-in and fight.
-The IBF don't have the ridiculous Diamond belt system, or a Super champion. The IBF simply have one champion per weight class, and thats how it should be.
-As far as I know, the IBF only have interim champions in very special circumstances. The IBF generally do not use the interim championship like the rest of the bodies have.
-It is based in the USA and therefore is subject to a lot more regulations.
-It is listed as a non-profit organisation along with the WBO.
-It does not get involved personally in controversial matters, or in fights themselves. Like Sulaiman on Pacquiao, as a fan of the sport I expect bodies to be neutral. Also, the IBF did not take sides on the Haye-Chisora spectacle.
-It does not change its rankings/ratings/decisions easily unlike the WBC, it follows its own rules.
Theres been a few affairs recently though. The Cloud/Capillo match was disgraceful. I'm not sure how far you can blame the IBF for that though, seeing as though Don King has the greatest track record for paying off Judges. Also we had the Mystery Man, however the IBF were to hold an official hearing for this situation till Khan called it off. Have there been any recent examples of corruption that I havent listed?
To me, it seems unfair to list the IBF alongside the WBC/WBA in terms of corruption. Though I may be wrong, this is what I know and I may have missed out some blatent examples which totally disprove everything I say
However, from what Ive put, it seems the IBF have been plagued by its history, and its quite an underrated body considering the procedures it has.
What are your thoughts boxingscene?
P.S, knowing the standard of argument on here, I am in no way trying to big up Froch's title here.
Many people say all sanctioning bodies are corrupt and are in there for the money, hands down. I'd say there is truth in that somewhat, these bodies need money to survive of course, though it is obvious that corruption is absolutely rampant within the WBA and WBC.
Froch's win last night got me thinking about the IBF. There was utter scandal with the IBF I believe in the 90s, (and early 00s?) of corruption, however since then there has been top down reorganisation of this body. Whilst not the most legitimate body (ie most true champions dont have this belt) I believe it is least corrupt body, and has done at least some justice for boxing with its cloudly championship scene.
Why I think that? The IBF have a number of points in its favour:
-It has a weigh-in on the day of the fight, which to me is great for all weight classes (excl heavyweight) since it lessens the advantages fighters may get for putting weight on between the weigh-in and fight.
-The IBF don't have the ridiculous Diamond belt system, or a Super champion. The IBF simply have one champion per weight class, and thats how it should be.
-As far as I know, the IBF only have interim champions in very special circumstances. The IBF generally do not use the interim championship like the rest of the bodies have.
-It is based in the USA and therefore is subject to a lot more regulations.
-It is listed as a non-profit organisation along with the WBO.
-It does not get involved personally in controversial matters, or in fights themselves. Like Sulaiman on Pacquiao, as a fan of the sport I expect bodies to be neutral. Also, the IBF did not take sides on the Haye-Chisora spectacle.
-It does not change its rankings/ratings/decisions easily unlike the WBC, it follows its own rules.
Theres been a few affairs recently though. The Cloud/Capillo match was disgraceful. I'm not sure how far you can blame the IBF for that though, seeing as though Don King has the greatest track record for paying off Judges. Also we had the Mystery Man, however the IBF were to hold an official hearing for this situation till Khan called it off. Have there been any recent examples of corruption that I havent listed?
To me, it seems unfair to list the IBF alongside the WBC/WBA in terms of corruption. Though I may be wrong, this is what I know and I may have missed out some blatent examples which totally disprove everything I say
However, from what Ive put, it seems the IBF have been plagued by its history, and its quite an underrated body considering the procedures it has.What are your thoughts boxingscene?
P.S, knowing the standard of argument on here, I am in no way trying to big up Froch's title here.
Comment