BoxRec

With the IBF stripping Mr Fury made me think how the sanctioning bodies are effing crap. Quick poll to see if any is better than the others.

Bbbofc

JamieM wrote:Bbbofc

Isnt the BBBoC just british and not world? I might be wrong of course.

Definitely not the WBA, can't really go for the WBC given their history and bias towards Mexicans, IBF come up with some terrible mandatories, stick to their rules far too strictly, common sense has to be applied at some stage and WBO are more than favourable towards Arum and Warren and in the past have allowed some shocking fights for their titles.

Ended up going with the WBO but it's definitely a case of the best of a bad bunch, or who's least shit and they've been ok recently.

Bbbofc for me isn't a world governing body, they license the boxers , they have no impact on boxing or their rules, they follow a governing body such as Ibf and wba rules, my comment was sarcasm for Lee Jones jnr

I'm struggling with this one...

WBA - definitely not, they should be ignored until they stop with this ridiculous super, regular and interim nonsense.
IBF - went way down in my estimation over the Fury stripping.
WBC - wouldn't trust them, never have trusted them.
WBO - I've always seen them as the poor relation. They came on the scene and provided us with a whole host ridiculous 'world title' fights and champions. In recent years they've improved and are no worse than the others.

There are far too many sanctioning bodies and far too many titles. Until there's a serious rethink of how the governing bodies work, boxing will always struggle to be taken seriously by the wider public.

In this instance I've voted for the WBO and I can't quite believe that I have done so...which just shows what a state we're in.

The WBC is the only world body worth anything. They are the only one with any claim to being a global organisation, while the others are just a few people running a company out of an office. The WBC have also greatly improved since Maurizio Sulaiman took over from his dad

gobbles wrote:The WBC is the only world body worth anything. They are the only one with any claim to being a global organisation, while the others are just a few people running a company out of an office. The WBC have also greatly improved since Maurizio Sulaiman took over from his dad

The WBC at least claim to want unified champions.One way to achieve this would be for each of the 4 sanctioning bodies not to have a world champion, but to have a champion of their own, i.e. carry on as they do now.Their own champions would then meet in a semi-final and final and the eventual winner would become the WBA or WBC or IBF or WBO WORLD champion, i.e.whichever body put forward the eventual champion would have their name attached to the universally recognised world champion.
The world champion would be allowed one voluntary defence and the other bodies would take it in turns to provide a mandatory challenger. If, say, the WBA world champion was beaten by the IBF challenger the new champion would become the IBF world champion and the WBA would have to get in the queue to provide a challenger.
The incentive would be for each body to want the best boxers to fight for their title as that would be the only way they could eventually claim the world title.
Simples. The only problem is that all 4 would have to agree to the principal in the first place!

The WBC are a family run business. The IBF have previous convictions for taking cash to fiddle ratings and the WBA are an utter joke. I don't recall any WBO scandal to be fair.

As a matter of transparency do any of the governing bodies produce audited accounts for public scrutiny? If they don't , why not? And if they don' t , why would our own BBB of C support them ?

dalcumly wrote:The WBC are a family run business. The IBF have previous convictions for taking cash to fiddle ratings and the WBA are an utter joke. I don't recall any WBO scandal to be fair.

As a matter of transparency do any of the governing bodies produce audited accounts for public scrutiny? If they don't , why not? And if they don' t , why would our own BBB of C support them ?

WBO convention they were reporting income figures and profits, which weren't as high as people would expect, didn't see any breakdown of where the money was being spent although some will obviously go on staff and expenses and they run charity projects too.

A none of the above option needs to be inserted.

All of the 4 major governing bodies let themselves down at certain times. It seems there rules flex massively dependant on the division.

The IBF are perhaps the most consistent in upholding there own rule set, no matter how irritating they can be. They let themselves down by continually having very poor fighters in there world rankings though. (anomolies do happen of course.)

The WBO again continue to produce very mediocre opponents, and have an old IBF trait of recycling challengers.

The WBA are by far the worst of this bunch, they have devalued there belts to the point where it is almost meaningless to hold a title of there's.

the WBC pander to people to much, and are very biased towards the mexican contingent but i think they probably just about still hold the most prestige.

I so wanted the ibo to gain credibility and have ethics.

Ultimately where there's money there's corruption :(

I'd love it if a linear champ like fury binned the fukkin' lot publicly and took on all comers.

JamieM, you don't like the bbbofc do you?

Have you joined the MBC?

expe wrote:

gobbles wrote:The WBC is the only world body worth anything. They are the only one with any claim to being a global organisation, while the others are just a few people running a company out of an office. The WBC have also greatly improved since Maurizio Sulaiman took over from his dad

Looks like the WBC have got Canelo-Golovkin made and have been pushing for Stevenson-Kovalev.

Meanwhile, the WBO put Jimmy Kelly, who had not been ranked in September, in at No 9 for their October rankings on the back of a win over a guy who had a 16-6-3 record (and who lost to a 4-fight novice on Saturday), so he can suddenly challenge for a world title.

They are all W4NK

WBA are bottom of my list right now due to them having 4 "world title" per division. They are a joke at present
WBO have always been the weaker of the bodies in my view, weak champions, weak title fights

I've no doubt the other 2 are at all sorts of shenanigans, but right now they don't compare to the nonsense going on at WBA.

As one of the original and longest serving, the WBC is probably top of the pile for me, but they are all probably corrupt and shady as each other

WBF.................... WORLD BOXING FOUNDATION NO
IBO......................INTERNATIONAL BOXING ORGI Danny Green luvs it

I recently fought my Missus & beat her on points (I was the sole judge) & awarded myself a belt made of herbs.

It was a complete waist of thyme.

Much like the governing bodies.

They are all shyte.

That is all.

How about the Transnational Boxing Rankings Board (TBRB)?

www.tbrb.org

I don't like the bbbofc and what they stand for, I believe they use bullying and scare tactics against the fighters , want it all there own way and rip the fighters off. I am not a boxer but I also do not believe that the Malta boxing commission over enough cover medically and the risk of not being able to fight bbbofc fighters is not worth it, Iain weaver is a prime example, should be fighting the best but can only fight licensees of the MBC, unfortunately for me the bbbofc are stuck in their ways and have forgotten what matters in boxing

The WBC are probably the most prestigious and well run, but in truth they are the best of a bad bunch. I don't mind the general day to day workings of the IBF, but their policy around mandatory defenses, and choosing when to implement them, has been extremely annoying. Personally I would probably have the WBO in 2nd at the moment.