BoxRec

SPORTS NETWORKS WBU BELT, OR MATCHROOMS IBO BELT? which one means most.......!!!

the fighter makes the title for example if someone wins the wbu light welter title it will rocket em into the top in the world rankings but if they beat lawrence murphy wowee

Both Sky-TV titles, more than promotional outfits. Sky demand titles for the main event fights they screen.

Good point hitman... :( Guess i should of asked who boasts the better champions? on a whole i mean.

yeah u could argue sky has brought about the minor titles more so than warren and hearn after all they stipulate in there contracts with the promoters a certain amount of world title fights and thats the reason were being lumbered with the alphabet soup brigade.

I suppose it's bad for the spectator, and the genuine world champions, but it does give the "fringe" challengers a title, and a few extra £ to fight for? So thier not all that bad right?

Load of rubbish both of em,surley the WBC IS the original

Jacko11 wrote:Load of rubbish both of em,surley the WBC IS the original

True, but like richter-scale said, it is a good way of getting fighters, on their way up, into 12rounders and hearning a few quid on their way. it also lets sky say their broadcasting a world title fight to your jo public, who know no better.

Jacko11 wrote:Load of rubbish both of em,surley the WBC IS the original

even then i think fighter makes the title i mean manny pac-man hasn't even got a title belt yet i regard him as the featherweight champ of the world ahead of marquez and all the others.

hitman_hatton1 wrote:

Jacko11 wrote:Load of rubbish both of em,surley the WBC IS the original

even then i think fighter makes the title i mean manny pac-man hasn't even got a title belt yet i regard him as the featherweight champ of the world ahead of marquez and all the others.

Can i ask who you consider world flyweight champion?

I guess you'd have to pick kelly's succesor, irene pecheco now eric morel has been de-throned.

Both are absolute crap & should be banned from boxing.

So.... they get a few boxers a few more quid?

Well I reckon bogus title fights means fewer fans. And in the long run, means less fans and less money.

both mean little..but at least the IBO has a little bit more credabilty than the WBU.the IBO have chamos like paulie ayala roy jones Jnr and the former heavy champ LL..thats not to sad a list..im sure the same cant be said of the WBU

Yes but c'mon Scuralruntins - if I formed a new world governing body today, say the World Boxing Infinty Ltd - and said all my champs were the most respected fighters ( Tszyu, Hopkins etc ) would that be a good thing?

One week later, I could strip Hop and crown myself champion...

MightyWarrior wrote:Yes but c'mon Scuralruntins - if I formed a new world governing body today, say the World Boxing Infinty Ltd - and said all my champs were the most respected fighters ( Tszyu, Hopkins etc ) would that be a good thing?

One week later, I could strip Hop and crown myself champion...

to be perfectly honest there all shit the IBO included.but unfortunately it has a smaller measure of rescpectability about it than the WBU with its head quarters in a norwich cottage.the WBU has about as much value as a chocolate teapot it means absolutely nothing.

At least with the IBO, you have to be in the top 35 of their independant rankings (which are completely unbiased and a great reflection of current rankings) to challenge for a title, which in my opinion means the IBO title is far more credible than the WBU title

Neither of them mean a thing, they should not be acknowledged or even mentioned. Our promoters are destroying boxing by steering their fighters towards these pathetic pieces of tin plated shite. There is no respect for the sport, the fans or (least of all) the fighters

I agree that it is the fighter that makes the title.
But with all other things being equal this is how I would rate the belts

IBF
WBA
WBC
IBO
WBO
IBC
WBF
IBA
NBA
WAA
WBU
IBU
GBO
WBB
GBF
UAA
UBC
TWBA
WJBF
WBE
NABC

After a dozen who knows ?
after 7 or 8 just rate em' on how they sound I guess.
the ones with the word Junior Sound pimpy

The ones with the word Universal sound Out of this World,
International and Global make some sense.

But as I said look at how they rate them , that is what matters.

Who gets rated as the best. Not some fighter nobody knows that is called champ because he is the only contender who would accept the belt.

If they were not just about the money the organization would not even care if they accepted the title belt. They would just rate them and give the belt or hold it in their name.

They should just Call it like it is, the best is the best.

But that would be fair and I am not to sure fair is what any group is really about.

bobby brown wrote:I agree that it is the fighter that makes the title.
But with all other things being equal this is how I would rate the belts

IBF
WBA
WBC
IBO
WBO
IBC
WBF
IBA
NBA
WAA
WBU
IBU
GBO
WBB
GBF
UAA
UBC
TWBA
WJBF
WBE
NABC

After a dozen who knows ?
after 7 or 8 just rate em' on how they sound I guess.
the ones with the word Junior Sound pimpy

The ones with the word Universal sound Out of this World,
International and Global make some sense.

But as I said look at how they rate them , that is what matters.

Who gets rated as the best. Not some fighter nobody knows that is called champ because he is the only contender who would accept the belt.

If they were not just about the money the organization would not even care if they accepted the title belt. They would just rate them and give the belt or hold it in their name.

They should just Call it like it is, the best is the best.

But that would be fair and I am not to sure fair is what any group is really about.

Personally mate i would sooner have a WBC belt round my waist than an IBF

IBO get more respect from me because of their ratings.

adamiw wrote:IBO get more respect from me because of their ratings.

Good point pal... At least the champions cant box below-par opponents to make a few easy defences!

richter-scale wrote:

adamiw wrote:IBO get more respect from me because of their ratings.

Good point pal... At least the champions cant box below-par opponents to make a few easy defences!

thing is, because they aint big enough to enforce mandatory defences, the champs still hand pick their opponents
but if they become bigger, and more respected this may change

This question is a bit like asking....

"Which do you find tastier, camelshit or dogshit?"

Neither belt really means jack all, unless as stated earlier the fighter holding the belt is a world class fighter. The WBU has undoubtedly been enhanced by Ricky Hatton's tenure, thought it has been a long time coming.

Robin Reid made a good point after the ottke "fight".
He said the "lower" belts get a lot of stick, but it's the "higher" belts which attract the most corruption and even bad management. (End of Brodie fight for example).

The role of a belt in determining the prestige of a fight is probably at an all time low...(what fight get the most attention, an Ottke fight or Cotto fight for example) but I'm not complaining.

Yes, this is undoubtedly becoming more true.

The WBO might have spurious rankings, but no more spurious than the major sanctioning bodies, and what i have witnessed recently with all the three major sanctioning bodies, leads me to believe they are literally riddled with corruption.

The WBA is probably the least corrupt of the three in fairness to them, the IBF in my opinion is without a doubt the worst, and hopefully it is a matter of time before they are under investigation again....