BoxRec

dberry wrote:

rivado wrote:I pick WBC if I had to pick one on the list but the real title is the linear one and in case of a break in lineage then the consensus no.1 ie the RJJ/DM situation. Boxrec is usually spot on with their rankings and Ill use them as a point of reference too. Fans, writers and historians should have say on who is the real world champion is and also how the divisions are ranked. Something like a committee for the linear consensus of boxing championship titles and rankings. Sometime I will use only the original 8 weight classes and rank current fighters and determine the man on top of each divison for kicks.

So Saul Alvarezis the middleweight champion of the world, in your opinion, even though he relinquishes his alphabet title in order to not fight he unified champion? IMO the "Lineal Title" became irrelevant a long time ago.

Canelo screwed the lineage of one of boxing's most storied divisions...shame on that guy. This is where my other comment about the consensus no 1 in the divison recovers the lineage to the title after some time and declaring his dominance in the division...And it looks like the WBC is ahead on this poll for what that is worth... The lineal title will always be relevant...imo.

And I agree with posts above declaring the fighter makes the championship and not a strap per say.

rivado wrote:

dberry wrote:

rivado wrote:I pick WBC if I had to pick one on the list but the real title is the linear one and in case of a break in lineage then the consensus no.1 ie the RJJ/DM situation. Boxrec is usually spot on with their rankings and Ill use them as a point of reference too. Fans, writers and historians should have say on who is the real world champion is and also how the divisions are ranked. Something like a committee for the linear consensus of boxing championship titles and rankings. Sometime I will use only the original 8 weight classes and rank current fighters and determine the man on top of each divison for kicks.

So Saul Alvarezis the middleweight champion of the world, in your opinion, even though he relinquishes his alphabet title in order to not fight he unified champion? IMO the "Lineal Title" became irrelevant a long time ago.

Canelo screwed the lineage of one of boxing's most storied divisions...shame on that guy. This is where my other comment about the consensus no 1 in the divison recovers the lineage to the title after some time and declaring his dominance in the division...And it looks like the WBC is ahead on this poll for what that is worth... The lineal title will always be relevant...imo.

And I agree with posts above declaring the fighter makes the championship and not a strap per say.

Even though there's plenty of examples of the lineal title being broken then restarted throughout the history of boxing (retirements, deaths, suspensions etc.) I think that it has become somewhat irrelevant in the past decade or so, particularly since the WBO has been recognised and the WBA introduced the "super champion" bullshit.

Like a Boss wrote: Note the WBC are way out in front of the poll too.

neck and neck to 'none', so hardly a ringing endorsement

they all stink but the WBC is the one i think most fans would recognise is the being 'the' title.

Ricky_ wrote:they all stink but the WBC is the one i think most fans would recognise is the being 'the' title.

Because they have an emotional attachment to the green bauble, it isn't because they are the least corrupt.
As they are clearly not the least corrupt.

ttornado wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:they all stink but the WBC is the one i think most fans would recognise is the being 'the' title.

Because they have an emotional attachment to the green bauble, it isn't because they are the least corrupt.
As they are clearly not the least corrupt.

Indeed, they all stink. But historically WBC i'd say us 'the' belt.

Ricky_ wrote:

Indeed, they all stink. But historically WBC i'd say us 'the' belt.

WBA is significantly older, so really if any belt is 'the' belt it's theirs.

Odd that the poll includes the IBO and not The Ring.

I looked into all world title bouts in Boxrec since 2012.

The quality of a title bout can be measured by the average rating of the lower rated opponent - as the top boxer should see best opposition.

computerrank wrote:I looked into all world title bouts in Boxrec since 2012.

- WBASUP
- WBA
- WBC
- IBF
- WBO
- IBO

The quality of a title bout can be measured by the average rating of the lower rated opponent - as the top boxer should see best opposition.

Code: Select all

+--------+--------------+
| title  | r_lower      |
+--------+--------------+
| WBASUP | 238.02214167 |
| WBC    | 204.54468077 |
| IBF    | 183.52879167 |
| WBO    | 166.04850435 |
| IBO    | 160.81987143 |
| WBA    | 134.47755333 |
+--------+--------------+

So the WBA is simultaneously the best and the worst! Really just highlights the mess in boxing.
Or am I missing something which is why you changed the order to #1 WBASUP #2 WBA ?

ttornado wrote:So the WBA is simultaneously the best and the worst! Really just highlights the mess in boxing.
Or am I missing something which is why you changed the order to #1 WBASUP #2 WBA ?

You are completely right

- WBA Super World title bouts show the BEST lower rated opponents
- WBA Regular World title bouts show the WORST lower rated opponents

ttornado wrote:

Like a Boss wrote: Note the WBC are way out in front of the poll too.

neck and neck to 'none', so hardly a ringing endorsement

The WBC has more votes than the other organizations combined

The WBC sucks the most... They're the most corrupt of the lot... But they're all terrible.

The most honest by far is the ibo

No love for any of the alphabet orgs but I voted for the WBC.
My reason?
To my knowledge the WBC is recognized in every country where boxing is a legal activity.
I believe that is true for the WBA as well but the WBC doesn't play the "regular" champion bullshit, so I would rate the WBC at the top of the crap heap.
I think there are countries out there that still do not recognize the WBO and IBF.
The IBO?
A lot of the boxing sites that list title holders still do not list the IBO title holder.
If that is not a good enough indication for you that the IBO is a second- rate "wanna-be" sanctioning body then nothing will be.

The Ring?
It is not and never has claimed to be a sanctioning body.
Once there is an actual consensus CHAMPION(do not confuse "champion" with "best") The Ring does a good job of tracking lineage.
Ring champion and linear champion aren't always one and the same but once they are The Ring does a good job afterwards.

It is still a big deal when we have a unification fight for whatever that is worth. So there is some value to the ABCs...

If these abcs did business differently maybe we would have better clarity in terms of recognizing declaring world champions and setting up the world rankings....

The fighter makes the belt and not the other way around. All of the sanctioning bodies are driven by their own agendas and tend to bend their rules to suit whatever situation they are trying to engineer at the time...