Dude you're the king of research on boxrec & I'm bored & lacking passion with any debate that abc orgs have "short term" integrity, but maybe not longer term integrity (lol) & I promise you if you go look around even a lil you'll see plenty of switch ups from various timetables.fergusg wrote:I agree to a certain extent, but in the case of Floyd, is that the WBC simply made a dodgy decision that seemed to contravene their own rules – they didn’t change their mind within a short timescale for no reason whatsoever.ReggieDiggs wrote:Disagree unless that "good reason" is it makes them more money. They could pull a reason outta their ass tomorrow. There aren't a whole lot of hard & fast rules abc orgs abide by. I've been bored with the crimes & treasons of abc orgs against the sport of boxing for years, but I'm sure someone who's been keeping track of all this nonsense could post a dozen or so "rule" flips they've made. I mean right now we got a guy in Floyd who's holding two belts in two weight divisions. Let someone else try that.fergusg wrote:The WBC can't change their stance without good reason.
Do you know what I mean? The rancid WBC are an utter disgrace and do lots of dodgy things, but they rarely change their minds within a short timescale.
Miguel Cotto is a big name, money-spinning type fighter… and the WBC have granted him the opportunity to engage in a voluntary defence of his title. They can’t retract that right unless he exceeds a pre-defined timescale.
Going back to your original point though, the WBC are a ridiculous governing body that have done a lot of deplorable things, so I can’t really disagree with your stance. However, I feel that the WBA have recently overtaken them (due to their “super”, “unified”, “undisputed”, “regular”, “interim” world titles).
I think comparing abc orgs is like having a turd beauty pageant. No one cares & its a waste of time.