BoxRec

The best thing that could happen though is a few of these ranking bodies either merge or go bust. And good riddance it would be. All as bad as each other and have been for at least 25 years now.

boxing_rocks wrote:

jujigatame wrote:The "mandatory" concept was created to prevent a champion from avoiding the most qualified challenger, keeping his belt indefinitely by defending against an endless string of fringe contenders. But today it doesn't work that way. Today, the fringe contenders more often than not ARE the mandatories. Lipinets is very good, but there is absolutely nobody who believes that he is the #1 contender in the world at 140.

Mandatories will never serve their purpose until ABC rankings make sense and they agree to rank each others champions. So basically, they'll never serve their purpose in the modern sport and we may as well get rid of them.

IBF allowed Indongo to fight one opponent of his choice. Only after that they enforce a mandatory. Seems to be a very fair approach to me allowing champions to fight other champions or take tuneups, but on the other hand disallowing them to sit on their belts and cherry pick like some "champions" of other orgs.

If we all agree the mandatory isn't the true #1 contender, what's the point of enforcing it? Especially if it actively blocks a unification bout.

jujigatame wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote:

jujigatame wrote:The "mandatory" concept was created to prevent a champion from avoiding the most qualified challenger, keeping his belt indefinitely by defending against an endless string of fringe contenders. But today it doesn't work that way. Today, the fringe contenders more often than not ARE the mandatories. Lipinets is very good, but there is absolutely nobody who believes that he is the #1 contender in the world at 140.

Mandatories will never serve their purpose until ABC rankings make sense and they agree to rank each others champions. So basically, they'll never serve their purpose in the modern sport and we may as well get rid of them.

IBF allowed Indongo to fight one opponent of his choice. Only after that they enforce a mandatory. Seems to be a very fair approach to me allowing champions to fight other champions or take tuneups, but on the other hand disallowing them to sit on their belts and cherry pick like some "champions" of other orgs.

If we all agree the mandatory isn't the true #1 contender, what's the point of enforcing it? Especially if it actively blocks a unification bout.

Mandatories give incentives to contenders and allow fresh blood in the sport. Without enforcing them, we see situations like Spence or Beterbiev where nobody (with rare exceptions) wants to risk their belts against them.

In Indongo case, it is not blocking unifications, just spreading them to every other fight. Besides, did you consider a possibility that Lipinets is actually better than Indongo? What if he deserves Crawford fight more than Indongo?

boxing_rocks wrote: Mandatories give incentives to contenders and allow fresh blood in the sport. Without enforcing them, we see situations like Spence or Beterbiev where nobody (with rare exceptions) wants to risk their belts against them.

In Indongo case, it is not blocking unifications, just spreading them to every other fight. Besides, did you consider a possibility that Lipinets is actually better than Indongo? What if he deserves Crawford fight more than Indongo?

That's really not the point of a mandatory, to "allow fresh blood". The point of a mandatory is to prevent the champ from ducking the #1 contender. If the mandatory isn't the true #1 contender, the whole exercise is meaningless. You're just arbitrarily (or not so arbitrarily, considering manager/promoter connections) choosing a contender and giving them preferential treatment.

Maybe the real problem is considering Indongo a champ to begin with. For anyone who follows the sport, Crawford is the champ. Indongo is a contender. All the ABCs do is muddy the waters by giving out belts like candy and creating the situation where a division has half a dozen "champions".

jujigatame wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote: Mandatories give incentives to contenders and allow fresh blood in the sport. Without enforcing them, we see situations like Spence or Beterbiev where nobody (with rare exceptions) wants to risk their belts against them.

In Indongo case, it is not blocking unifications, just spreading them to every other fight. Besides, did you consider a possibility that Lipinets is actually better than Indongo? What if he deserves Crawford fight more than Indongo?

That's really not the point of a mandatory, to "allow fresh blood". The point of a mandatory is to prevent the champ from ducking the #1 contender. If the mandatory isn't the true #1 contender, the whole exercise is meaningless. You're just arbitrarily (or not so arbitrarily, considering manager/promoter connections) choosing a contender and giving them preferential treatment.

Maybe the real problem is considering Indongo a champ to begin with. For anyone who follows the sport, Crawford is the champ. Indongo is a contender. All the ABCs do is muddy the waters by giving out belts like candy and creating the situation where a division has half a dozen "champions".

In ideal world, you would be right, but in situation with 4 ABC orgs, who would determine a "true #1 contender" ?

If the IBF actually cared about the good of boxing, they would let Indongo do the unification, and have Lipinets fight for an Interim Title.

But Haymon will do anything in his power to make sure Crawford doesn't become an undisputed champion.

klitoris wrote:If the IBF actually cared about the good of boxing, they would let Indongo do the unification, and have Lipinets fight for an Interim Title.

But Haymon will do anything in his power to make sure Crawford doesn't become an undisputed champion.

IBF uses interim titles very rarely when a titleholder is injured. What does Haymon have to do with any of this?

boxing_rocks wrote:

jujigatame wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote: Mandatories give incentives to contenders and allow fresh blood in the sport. Without enforcing them, we see situations like Spence or Beterbiev where nobody (with rare exceptions) wants to risk their belts against them.

In Indongo case, it is not blocking unifications, just spreading them to every other fight. Besides, did you consider a possibility that Lipinets is actually better than Indongo? What if he deserves Crawford fight more than Indongo?

That's really not the point of a mandatory, to "allow fresh blood". The point of a mandatory is to prevent the champ from ducking the #1 contender. If the mandatory isn't the true #1 contender, the whole exercise is meaningless. You're just arbitrarily (or not so arbitrarily, considering manager/promoter connections) choosing a contender and giving them preferential treatment.

Maybe the real problem is considering Indongo a champ to begin with. For anyone who follows the sport, Crawford is the champ. Indongo is a contender. All the ABCs do is muddy the waters by giving out belts like candy and creating the situation where a division has half a dozen "champions".

In ideal world, you would be right, but in situation with 4 ABC orgs, who would determine a "true #1 contender" ?

I volunteer for the job.

LOL I was going to have the very same response.

I mean look, I like Lipinets a lot, but the idea that a supposed champ should be forced to fight him just because he beat Walter Castillo and Leo Zappavigna is kind of ridiculous. He does not have a single top 10 win.

jujigatame wrote:LOL I was going to have the very same response.

I mean look, I like Lipinets a lot, but the idea that a supposed champ should be forced to fight him just because he beat Walter Castillo and Leo Zappavigna is kind of ridiculous. He does not have a single top 10 win.

Feed The Indongo to Hitman Jr. (if he gets by Diaz).

jujigatame wrote:LOL I was going to have the very same response.

I mean look, I like Lipinets a lot, but the idea that a supposed champ should be forced to fight him just because he beat Walter Castillo and Leo Zappavigna is kind of ridiculous. He does not have a single top 10 win.

Neither did indongo.

I didn't argue for Indongo being a good mandatory either, assuming he was one.

The reason why the ABC's exist in their numbers is very simple. Corruption. The board members who sit on these organizations' board of directors get off the record payments (bribes) from promoters who do so to make their guys move up the rankings and get title shots. This money is not official money that goes to the actual organization. It is handed to them personally and it stays off the record and doesn't get taxed.

If all these ABCs actually ran a clean business/organization/non-profit they would have merged into one single organization a long time ago.

But the reality is that promoters want their fighters to become champions and they don't want their fighters to fight other fighters (who they will most likely lose to) to become champions. This is partially the reason why these organizations formed and is a fundamental reason why they are still separately functioning.

Yes, ABCs are just feeding bases for its executives, mainly for presidents. However, some are more corrupt than others. I think WBA is the most corrupt by far, while IBF is the least corrupt.

... double post

jujigatame wrote:I didn't argue for Indongo being a good mandatory either, assuming he was one.

I didn't say you did, this will be a real good fight.

boxing_rocks wrote:If Crawford offers enough money, Indongo will probably drop the IBF belt. The question is if Crawford is capable of offering enough money and if he will want to do that for only one belt.

Agreed. Personally I dont think Indongo is ready for the likes of Crawford. Give him another few bouts against top-notch/world-class opposition.

Best Coast wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote:If Crawford offers enough money, Indongo will probably drop the IBF belt. The question is if Crawford is capable of offering enough money and if he will want to do that for only one belt.

Agreed. Personally I dont think Indongo is ready for the likes of Crawford. Give him another few bouts against top-notch/world-class opposition.

He is ready to cash out.

I thought the IBF allowed mandatory defenses to be delayed for unification fights?

Isn't that how Hopkins delayed some little known mandatory that the networks refused approve as an opponent?
The IBF was going to strip Hopkins but he signed to fight Kovalev a day or two before the deadline so he was allowed to keep his IBF for the unification fight.

Perseus wrote:I thought the IBF allowed mandatory defenses to be delayed for unification fights?

Isn't that how Hopkins delayed some little known mandatory that the networks refused approve as an opponent?
The IBF was going to strip Hopkins but he signed to fight Kovalev a day or two before the deadline so he was allowed to keep his IBF for the unification fight.

Maybe it depends on who holds the title.. Hopkins was big name. Indongo, not so much.

Do you know if Wlad fought all his IBF mandos?

jujigatame wrote:LOL I was going to have the very same response.

I mean look, I like Lipinets a lot, but the idea that a supposed champ should be forced to fight him just because he beat Walter Castillo and Leo Zappavigna is kind of ridiculous. He does not have a single top 10 win.

I'm actually glad. Indongo isn't much of a champion. Burns won his title against a domestic-level fighter. Troyanovsky was a very good win, though, but let's not act like Indongo was coming off a gauntlet of Postol, Barthelemy, and Orozco or something.

I'd rather see Indongo face Lipinets than Crawford. I think Crawford would shut him out.

Ruthless-RKO wrote:

Perseus wrote:I thought the IBF allowed mandatory defenses to be delayed for unification fights?

Isn't that how Hopkins delayed some little known mandatory that the networks refused approve as an opponent?
The IBF was going to strip Hopkins but he signed to fight Kovalev a day or two before the deadline so he was allowed to keep his IBF for the unification fight.

Maybe it depends on who holds the title.. Hopkins was big name. Indongo, not so much.

Do you know if Wlad fought all his IBF mandos?

Yeah, he had to fight Kubrat Pulev. I remember he wanted to unify with Stiverne instead, but they forced him to defend his title.

Lipinetz is sort of okay. I'm not totally convinced that Indongo is a super amazing rival for Crawford, and I'm not opposed to Indongo getting a win against Lipinetz before a semi-super fight between Crawford and Indongo. That's still not even a super fight. Indongo just isn't very established as an elite fighter. Like... he beat Troyanovsky... stop the presses! He's the second coming of Aaron Pryor! TROYA F*CKING NOVSKY! Name me one boxer with a better win than Trovanovsky! Or 200. Jean Pascal has better wins than that. Amir Khan has way better wins. Jermain Taylor has way better wins. Vic Darchinyan has better wins. Indongo is just the latest fighter to be immensely overrated. The dude accomplished all of this (win over Ricky Burns) by the young age of only 34. I remember back when Devon Alexander had only one entire successful title defense in his whole life (like Indongo does right now). Hey, that reminds me, Devon Alexander has much better wins than Indongo.

Indongo reported an injury, plus there are talks about vacating:

http://www.BS.com/indongo-advi ... ed--115949

boxing_rocks wrote:Indongo reported an injury, plus there are talks about vacating:

http://www.BS.com/indongo-advi ... ed--115949

Just seen. Might delay the mando. I don't think IBF are ones to use Interim titles though