IBO credibility

[chrisfinch]

After reading some very damning verdicts of the WBU (and rightly so) and the WBO on here recently, I just wondered what you guys on here thought about the IBO.

They've got some big name champions at the minute, most notably Hatton, Wlad, Dawson and Diaz and their rankings on the website made interesting reading.

So do you folks consider the IBO as a fifth world title organisation? Better than the WBO? Or just another alphabet organisation that is ruining the sport.

I'd be interested to ehar your opinions.

[Poncey]

I like it. Computerised rankings, credible champions and I, for one, am becoming disillusioned by the mandatories of the other titles (Rubio, seriously?!) and super duper wuper champion emeritous and interims.

Personally, I'd put IBO 4th. But only on the legacy of the other orgs.

[n1ebf]

would Matthew Hatton be boxing for the WBC, IBF, WBA or WBO??

He hasn't taken a pop at the British in 40 fights.

He's boxing for the IBO next month or maybe the month after against Ted Bami, the man who lost Prizefighter to Michael Lomax.

That's all I know about that organisation tbh.....apart from it once was contested, I believe, by Kevin Bennet and Jason Cooke.....a much more solid match-up IMO.

[DG.]

I like it. Computerised rankings, credible champions and I, for one, am becoming disillusioned by the mandatories of the other titles (Rubio, seriously?!) and super duper wuper champion emeritous and interims.

Personally, I'd put IBO 4th. But only on the legacy of the other orgs.

[brian13]

I have to put the IBO 4th because there rankings are very good and they are better than the WBO

[gobbles]

I have to put the IBO 4th because there rankings are very good and they are better than the WBO

The IBO's a total joke. No mandatories means they try to give their titles to big name champions to get a bit of credibility, but then just let them fight anyone. They are so desperate the please their big names, they gave Klitschko a big ring after he beat Ibragimov - he said he felt married to them.
They have Hatton, Klitschko, Diaz, Dawson, Banks, but then it's Sakio Bika and can anyone name their middle, light-middle and welter champions? And how about some of their smaller weights?

WBO at least has their own champions.
Klitschko, Ramirez, Erdei, Pavlik, Williams, Cotto/Jennings, Holt (facing Bradley), Campbell, Luevano, Lopez, Montiel, Narvaez, Calderon.

That's a pretty impressive list of champions. Also they are one group who approve unifications, which is a good thing, unlike the IBF who strip guys as soon as possible and the WBA who create a second world title.
But, of course, so many people on here are blinded by hatred of allegedly, that they do not look at the facts. IBO, jeez!

[Collins2000]

would Matthew Hatton be boxing for the WBC, IBF, WBA or WBO??

He hasn't taken a pop at the British in 40 fights.

He's boxing for the IBO next month or maybe the month after against Ted Bami, the man who lost Prizefighter to Michael Lomax.

That's all I know about that organisation tbh.....apart from it once was contested, I believe, by Kevin Bennet and Jason Cooke.....a much more solid match-up IMO.

Nuf said!

[teddy007]

would Matthew Hatton be boxing for the WBC, IBF, WBA or WBO??

He hasn't taken a pop at the British in 40 fights.

He's boxing for the IBO next month or maybe the month after against Ted Bami, the man who lost Prizefighter to Michael Lomax.

That's all I know about that organisation tbh.....apart from it once was contested, I believe, by Kevin Bennet and Jason Cooke.....a much more solid match-up IMO.

Matthew Hatton is the most lucky fighter on the planet and one of the worst.

[Wake up call]

All the sanctioning bodies have their flaws. The only thing that makes the IBO less credible than any other belt is that they haven't been around as long.

As it stands, they have not be accused/ found guilty of taking bribes, they do not have a stupid "we will not rank fighters with other titles" policy and they haven't ranked any dead people. The other four bodies cannot claim that.

The IBO is credible in the fact that they have not been found to be corrupt but they don't have credibilty in their list of champions but they are a growing organisation and with the attitude and professionalism the have that the others don't, the future can only be bright for the IBO.

[crusader]

would Matthew Hatton be boxing for the WBC, IBF, WBA or WBO??

He hasn't taken a pop at the British in 40 fights.

He's boxing for the IBO next month or maybe the month after against Ted Bami, the man who lost Prizefighter to Michael Lomax.
.

This pretty much sums up why the IBO is deemed less worthy than other titles. If a fighter holds lets say the WBA/WBO/IBO belts, no one will even recognize or mention the IBO title. It is a fifth tier title

I mean Roy Jones in his prime was the NBA champion, but that doesn't mean there a credible organization, simply because a good fighter is one of their champions.

[steve689]

Debate, Debate:

http://www.britishboxing.net/news_3814- ... oxing.html

[hitman09]

None of them is worth a shit, the only fair world titles are the Ring oneshttp://forum.boxrec.com/posting.php?mode=reply&f=9&t=96373#

[oliverfennell]

I like the way the IBO does things; the lack of mandatories and the computerised tankings. However for all the credibility those two points afford them, it's all undone by having a top 100 eligible for their world titles.

The Ring is OK but it's not legit. It's just self-appointed and the magazine itself is too heavy-handed in its promotion of the belt. What's to stop any other magazine doing the same? They don't have any influence in the matchmaking, they just staple their championship onto whoever wins when there is a match that coincides with their rankings. If I had enough money, I could do exactly the same thing.

[banjo]

No "world" title is worth a piss, they are all equally corrupt and nominate shocking opponents as mandatories, then they have those ridiculous, "interim" and "super" titles not forgetting "champion in recess" and "WBC champion emeritus" WTF?

The Ring is no better either, Vitali Klitschko v Corrie Sanders for The Ring belt? What a joke.

[Adamj1987]

the IBO are good not as corrupt as soem otehr organisations

the ring belt is good becuse it doesnt strip and enforce mandataries that are hogwash

[hitman_hatton1]

the whole title picture has become a mess.

for example the bbc calling ricky hatton a former world champion when he said a piece about calzaghe the other week on bbc news.

fighters being stripped for not facing sub par opponents.

and then the fans not being able to make there minds up when u have a legit champ who maybe only holds 1 version of the title.

the whole thing has become a diluted mess.

[oliverfennell]

The IBO sanctioning Hatton-Bami as an 'eliminator' makes a mockery of their rankings. Eliminator for what? Both are outside the top fifty. Unless Matthew boxes another eliminator on Ricky Hatton's lucrative IBO title fight against Manny P. As it stands Hatton-Bami is a fine British showdown, and I hope it gives the winner a good ranking, it is also another example of the nonsensical fight-labelling of the alphabet boys. A chance to stick a 'world' tag on a domestic fight.

Aside from that the IBO are alright.

Yes, how can an organisation which doesn't hold mandatories sanction an eliminator?