Sanctioning bodies

who do you think are the best/worst of the sanctioning bodies(WBC,WBO,IBF,WBA)?

Is there a special introductory offer on today for new members?

£5 voucher for M&S or summat?

Welcome, by the way, and please feel free to join the Prediction League, the more the merrier!

https://www.606v2.com/t7986p50-union-cane-s-prediction-league-results-week-two-fixtures-new-entrants-welcome

thanks for the welcome and will do

Depends who the champ is

im more interested in what the sanctioning body does themselves and how they conduct themselves for me the WBA are the worst for having so many champions at one weight

Ok wbf are worst

Are you in a wheelchair mate. Im just asking because i am

I'm tempted to go with the obvious answer of 'they're all as bad as each other', which would be understandable, I'm sure you'll agree. However, if we must differentiate, then bottom of the pile, lowest of the low, the one which gets on my nips more than any other, we have the WBA. Ridiculous stripping of titles for monetary reasons, pathetic 'champion emeritus', 'regular champion' and 'super champion' belts, and arguably the least amount of quality on their list of champions.

The WBC's relationship with Don King and their bias towards Mexican fighters makes them nearly as deplorable, mind you. As for who is the 'best' right now, I'd go with either the IBF or WBO, but to be honest there's virtually nothing in it. A champion makes the belt these days.

i am in a wheelchair yeah

Chris, I thought the WBA had ties with King too? Also, it's WBC who have emeritus champions I think. WBA have diamond champs. Obviously..(!)

BALTIMORA wrote:Chris, I thought the WBA had ties with King too? Also, it's WBC who have emeritus champions I think. WBA have diamond champs. Obviously..(!)

King's relationship with the WBC may have tapered off recently, but for years he had them in his back pocket. In the nineties and early twenty-first century, the WBC very rarely decided to go with another promoter if King wanted to be involved in the fight. The way that King somehow manouvered Tyson to the WBC's number one contender spot immediately after his three and a half year jail layoff says it all, really.

As for the the extra 'champions', I wasn't going in to technicalities, as all of them are at it. You're right with your precise wording, but the fact is that when it comes to the creation of extra belts, the WBA are the worst culprits.

Ok slightly silly question maybe but I understand the whole WBC-Mexican, WBO-Warren and moving up fighters who are dead and the WBA 462 champions at each weight problems...... but can somebody please give me a quick briefing on the problems with the IBF as to me they seem to be the best of a bad bunch but Im sure its just cause there is something Im missing.

Many thanks in advance

well the ibf seem to be best i agree but i think IBO are best as they rank fighters sometimes higher then there own champion i dont rate ring magazine title as high as some as i think there is an americain bias with there ratings of fighters a lot of the time

As others said, they're all a joke but the recent antics of the WBC in brown-nosing the Mexicans with Chavez Jr and Alvarez and the way they shafted Martinez makes them the P4P scrots at the moment!

The WBF made Audley a World Heavyweight Champion.