BoxRec

From time to time circumstances change. As matter of interest, at this point in time which one do you consider more worthy?

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.

Are you talking about the WBA Super or Regular

sharpei_louis wrote:Are you talking about the WBA Super or Regular

Oops! I forgot its Super shite

WBA too many title holders
WBC make the rules up as they go
IBF keep recycling the same fighters for years and enforce poor mandatory fights
WBO don't seem to enforce mandatories
IBO don't know anything about them

I actually believe the IBO has the best ranking system and could be the least corrupt . The problem is no one takes them serious and they end up with fighters outside of the top ten holding their title because the big names don't really care about it.

I'd go
WBC
IBF
WBO
IBO
WBC intercontinental Americas
WBC Fecarbox
WBF
WBO Oriental title
And whatever other titles there are and then he WBA sits alone at the bottom.

3 years from now Ruslan Chagaev after being inactive will manage to get another WBA title shot.

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.

I hold all the titles in the same regard. It's more about who holds whatever title rather than the organisation. Most people nowadays have their own opinions of who's best at whatever weight.

All as bad as each other

None of them.
Ring mag rankings are a good guide although sometimes the issue of champion gets a bit sticky for example canelo. Since he ducked ggg and gave him his belt it is only appropriate really now to view ggg as middle champion.
Also light heavy - i think they have kovalev no.1 with no outright champion, which seems about fair enough though stevenson obviously has that claim from beating dawson in 1.

I see Tyson Fury as the real champion because he beated Klitschko. But normally the WBC, somehow at this moment the whole WBC is a total joke, not just the champion, also the rest of the list.

None of 'em have any more importance than the other.

The Champion makes the title.

WBC/WBA/WBO/IBF Are all the REAL thing IBO isn't REAL no matter even if a family member or friend of mine held it I would still stand by what I just said 4 are REAL 1 isn't if you don't think so go through all their Champ's and please don't bring up Wlad or GGG that's a gimick

My opinion. More money in fights and boxing = less credibility of championship belts

All have their flaws and are as bad as each other, WBC is the most prestigious but that's about it. For me its about who they beat to take the title, who they've defended against etc.. Fury, beat the man who was the man, no doubt now he's the undisputed heavyweight champion, Bellew, paper champ, De Gale, beat Dirrell for the title, defended against Bute, lets see how he gets on against Jack when they meet. Liam Smith, paper champ until he proves me wrong, you catch my drift..

None are credible anymore and they're all contributing to the downfall of the sport. However, if I had a gun to my head, I'd say at this time the WBC is probably just in front by a nose.

WBC best of a bad lot.

dont see one any better than the others, theres 4 governing bodies and thats that, dont know why people give props to the others then moan about the state of the game

Like a Boss wrote:WBC best of a bad lot.

Second worst more like

I hate them all equally

gilgamesh wrote:None of 'em have any more importance than the other.

The Champion makes the title.

Exactly.

When Holmes was WBC Champion he was Champion.

When Wilder is WBC champion, not so much.

If I had to pick in order (excluding IBO, as it doesn't have the muscle). I'd pick WBC, IBF, WBO then WBA. Above all else would be The Ring.

WBA is consistently the worst. The HW division which I know pretty well, the WBA HW ratings are a travesty.

Tony1244 wrote:WBA is consistently the worst. The HW division which I know pretty well, the WBA HW ratings are a travesty.

Hell when Lucas Browne and Ruslan Chagaev...their last 2 Champions had their belt they weren't even in the Top 10 of most credible rankings.

ttornado wrote:

Like a Boss wrote:WBC best of a bad lot.

Second worst more like

A matter of opinion. I'm sure that's why a poll has been included.

Note the WBC are way out in front of the poll too.