BoxRec

ALI wrote:Given the WBO's extremely wierd ratings, its very hard to believe corruption is not taking place somewhere down the line. I would like to say a lot more on that but do not wish to bring myself, or the Boxrec website, any heat!

The IBF were exposed around 10 years ago and anyone who watched the documentary would have been astonished at just how simplistic the whole IBF/bribing thing went. Anyone interested can watch the whole documentary here, runtime is about 2 hours:
http://www.ringsideboxingshow.com/BOXDO ... rkSide.htm

The IBF should have been banished from the face of the earth. And after everything they did to our sport and its competitors, some of there most recent actions have been so far of the mark that one has to wonder just what the hell they are getting up to now!

Is it an interesting watch?

WildWaylon wrote:Why have the WBO title if it isnt being recognized. We seem to have got rid of the WBU which was a laugh, so if its not seen as a true title then fighters need to boycott WBO title shots. Its the same with commonwealth titles, they dont mean that much either. Most fighters would prefer the British Lonsdale belt, except Khan who is frightened he will lose at British level. There are too many World titles, just imagine if we had 4 versions of the British title. There really has to be some pruning of titles, such as intercontinental champion its spoiling the sport.

Commonwealth titles are regarded as major championships and have a proud histort. Just because we've had a few dodgy Commonwealth scraps recently diesn't make the entire title unworthy of respect.

There's already several versions of the US title. Shame, that... it could be the most prestigious regional/national title in the sport.

Horse wrote:

gobbles wrote:The IBF put Leavander Johnson in at No 6 as he lay in a coma after losing his title to Jesus Chavez.

So they should have assumed that he was going to die and taken him out of the rankings? I think they did the right thing in that situation.

Even if he had lived, he was never going to fight again, so ranking him was pretty stupid. It's not like anyone ranked Michael Watson or Gerald McClellan from their comas in case they didn't die...

what was upshot of the whole rochiganni wbc fracas? did they reach some settlement to avoid bankruptcy?

By Sunday we could have Carl Davis Drummond walking round saying he's world heavyweight champion!!
At least according to the WBA.

Abbo wrote:

ALI wrote:Given the WBO's extremely wierd ratings, its very hard to believe corruption is not taking place somewhere down the line. I would like to say a lot more on that but do not wish to bring myself, or the Boxrec website, any heat!

The IBF were exposed around 10 years ago and anyone who watched the documentary would have been astonished at just how simplistic the whole IBF/bribing thing went. Anyone interested can watch the whole documentary here, runtime is about 2 hours:
http://www.ringsideboxingshow.com/BOXDO ... rkSide.htm

The IBF should have been banished from the face of the earth. And after everything they did to our sport and its competitors, some of there most recent actions have been so far of the mark that one has to wonder just what the hell they are getting up to now!

Is it an interesting watch?

Very interesting and will most likely change your view of what exactly a 'world title' means. The most enlightening thing for me to learn was that its not the promoters who were bribing the IBF, it was the IBF who were bribing the promoters. There whole ratings system was cunducted by two con-men who'd sit down and discuss which promoter is paying what amount of money what promoters are not etc, then juggle fighters names around on that basis. It was all caught on the FBI tapes and is shown in the film. Watch it, its a real eye opener!

Its hard not to think that this sort of thing is not happening across other organisations. The WBO's ratings are just ludacrous. Was it not Tucker Pudwill? who leaped from outside the top 100 into the top ten overnight and for no apparent reason whatsoever other than that Calzaghe could take an easy defense. What would motivate them to do such a thing?

ALI wrote:

Abbo wrote:

ALI wrote:Given the WBO's extremely wierd ratings, its very hard to believe corruption is not taking place somewhere down the line. I would like to say a lot more on that but do not wish to bring myself, or the Boxrec website, any heat!

The IBF were exposed around 10 years ago and anyone who watched the documentary would have been astonished at just how simplistic the whole IBF/bribing thing went. Anyone interested can watch the whole documentary here, runtime is about 2 hours:
http://www.ringsideboxingshow.com/BOXDO ... rkSide.htm

The IBF should have been banished from the face of the earth. And after everything they did to our sport and its competitors, some of there most recent actions have been so far of the mark that one has to wonder just what the hell they are getting up to now!

Is it an interesting watch?

Very interesting and will most likely change your view of what exactly a 'world title' means. The most enlightening thing for me to learn was that its not the promoters who were bribing the IBF, it was the IBF who were bribing the promoters. There whole ratings system was cunducted by two con-men who'd sit down and discuss which promoter is paying what amount of money what promoters are not etc, then juggle fighters names around on that basis. It was all caught on the FBI tapes and is shown in the film. Watch it, its a real eye opener!

Its hard not to think that this sort of thing is not happening across other organisations. The WBO's ratings are just ludacrous. Was it not Tucker Pudwill? who leaped from outside the top 100 into the top ten overnight and for no apparent reason whatsoever other than that Calzaghe could take an easy defense. What would motivate them to do such a thing?

Pudwill got the call because he was available at five days notice after Thomas Tate pulled out. He had gone the distance with Sven Ottke, so was not as hopeless as everyone on here makes out.

gobbles wrote:Pudwill got the call because he was available at five days notice after Thomas Tate pulled out. He had gone the distance with Sven Ottke, so was not as hopeless as everyone on here makes out.

Ok, he was brought in at short notice, but in order for the fight to be a legitamite defence of the WBO belt he needed a higher ranking, a much higher ranking, and wehay, he goes to bed one night ranked outside the top 100 and gets up the next morning inside the top ten. A few days later and he's fighting for the title. What the fcuk?

I've probably got my facts out of place above, i'm going on memory alone here and mine is poor at the best of times so if anyone could come in here with some hard facts i'd appreciate it!

Its Tocker not Tucker.

I guess it's not quite as strong as bribery in this kind fo case, its more indirect. ie no Pudwill no sanctioning fee.
You're right to highlight it though and it is a joke.

Its all true. Its not like the WBC would have quickly raised Gary Lockett up to get the sanctioning fee for his fight against Pavlik, or you know, strip a champion of his belt as Roy Jones Junior has decided he has changed his mind and whats it back.

The WBA are well known for their excellent rankings and the way they insist on being clear on who their champion is (as opposed to their interim, in recess or super champions) and don't chase sanctioning fees.

The IBF invariably enforce their mandatories as well which you can't complain about. Shame they aren't willing to stretch the amount of time allowed for unifications though, hence so often people vacating the IBF belts.


In all seriousness though the WBO rankings are pretty Euro centric which can produce some odd rankings. Their mandatories aren't enforced strongly enough and particularly when they started they seemed even more corrupt than the rest of the alphabets. Nowadays though would you really say they are that much worse than the other belts?

Incidentally wasn't Darius M was stripped of the WBA belt for holding the WBO belt at the same time? I believe that kind of thing has happened more than once. Didn't Hamed also get rid of one at least one of his belts as he was told he couldn't keep the WBO and that one? Though that might be my memory playing tricks on me.

If the WBO had problems with credibility until recently then surely it is thanks to the big 3 trying to stop a fourth player getting their nose in the sanctioning fee trough.

gobbles wrote:Pudwill got the call because he was available at five days notice after Thomas Tate pulled out. He had gone the distance with Sven Ottke, so was not as hopeless as everyone on here makes out.

Peter Buckley went the distance with Naz; does that mean he'd be an OK match for Pacquaio?

CJB wrote:Didn't Hamed also get rid of one at least one of his belts as he was told he couldn't keep the WBO and that one? Though that might be my memory playing tricks on me.

Hamed and Wilfredo Vasquez signed for a WBO-WBA unification, and then about a week before the fight, the WBA said Vasquez couldn't fight a champion of a rival body, so stripped him.

oliverfennell wrote:

gobbles wrote:Pudwill got the call because he was available at five days notice after Thomas Tate pulled out. He had gone the distance with Sven Ottke, so was not as hopeless as everyone on here makes out.

Peter Buckley went the distance with Naz; does that mean he'd be an OK match for Pacquaio?

Only 6 people didn't go the distance with Ottke.

Ratings are sometimes subjective , take Ajose Olusegun he has undoubted talent, but should he be anywhere near a world ranking? he is in the top 10 of a couple of the ranking systems, but hasn't beaten anyone above domestic level since 2004. Watch him in the ring and yes he does have the talent to compete at top level, but he hasn't fought anyone near world class, so he shouldn't be in the ranking, or should he be ranked on talent alone?

CJB wrote:The WBA are well known for their excellent rankings and the way they insist on being clear on who their champion is (as opposed to their interim, in recess or super champions) and don't chase sanctioning fees.

Great sarcasm.

banjo wrote:WBO is decent as a stepping stone to bigger fights, brings more recognition and money than a national or continental belt.

True. If you're going places you can use the WBO title to get to bigger things. If you're not, you take as many easy fights as you can for good money, as many times as you can before someone beats you.

Autobarn wrote:

banjo wrote:WBO is decent as a stepping stone to bigger fights, brings more recognition and money than a national or continental belt.

True. If you're going places you can use the WBO title to get to bigger things. If you're not, you take as many easy fights as you can for good money, as many times as you can before someone beats you.

Yeah, although it wasn't so much a stepping stone for Calzaghe as a stepping mountain. He got there in the end, but fk me it took a long time!

That was a time that showed what was wrong with British boxing, title fight after title fight with next to no meaning, something that really started with Eubank and Hearn.

Now you get some revisionist critics who like the gaudy numbers. One, on BS, has hailed Johnny Nelson as the #2 cruiserweight of all time, because of his 14 or so whopping title defences. I appreciate Nelson as much as the next man, but to me Haye's 2 meaningful title fights (Mormeck, Macca) are way more important.

Autobarn wrote:That was a time that showed what was wrong with British boxing, title fight after title fight with next to no meaning, something that really started with Eubank and Hearn.

Now you get some revisionist critics who like the gaudy numbers. One, on BS, has hailed Johnny Nelson as the #2 cruiserweight of all time, because of his 14 or so whopping title defences. I appreciate Nelson as much as the next man, but to me Haye's 2 meaningful title fights (Mormeck, Macca) are way more important.

Good post, spot on

The WBO without a doubt have the most consistently poor policy on mandatories and seem to be in thrall to european promoters.