I actually believe that the WBC does a good job creating an awareness of fighter safety, fitness, nutrition, and research. They have very strong worldwide support in these areas. Most of the negativity exists from American mainstream media like Ring Magazine, Max Kellerman, and HBO. But this negativity has not been transcended to other countries. (The British Boxing Board of Control love them.) The WBC also created a very strong presence for Mexican boxers and gave them worldwide recognition outside of their own countries. Yes, they are Mexican based, but this is an example illustrating the importance of creating and maintaining and international awareness for boxing on the world level. The WBC's dedication to fighter safety is right up there along with the British Boxing Board of Control and the Nevada State Athletic Commission. Unlike the IBF, whom I think is horrible, and the WBA which is not anywhere as receptive to communication as the WBC, Maurico Sulaiman has always taken the time to answer any of my concerns and questions. He has been very helpful. The WBC's conventions bring out the very best boxing people from all over the world who are very dedicated to the sport. Arther Mercante Sr, one of the premiere referees of his generation, has had nothing but praise for the WBC and considers them like "family."

Yes there are problems with some of the ratins and I hate their new optional open scoring crap that seems ready to be heaped once and for all to the garbage bin. (At least in the USA and Great Britain, it already has.) And the political influence of Arum and King manipulating the ratings has always been there. But that's with any boxing federation because the high power promoters always have the financial advantage and influence to control the ratings. Sometimes that's good, because King and Arum have the power to negotiate with the sanctioning bodies to get the big fights and unifications matches made that people want to see. Less experienced promoters who don't have that level of international boxing relations may not have the knowledge to get things done.

Boxing is an international sport and could not receive the recognition that it needs without worldwide exposure. Having a monopoly for boxing such as federal regulation would be horrible. One well-known fighter dies or gets hurt under one government regulator and it's bring out the head-gear, 2 minute rounds, and a 10 round bout maximum distance. Ring Magazine used to have good ratings 20 years ago. Ever since they named Vitali Klitschko heavyweight champion based on a LOSING effort to Lennox Lewis and a win over "Corrie Sanders?" I said "no mas" to Ring. They lost whatever respect they used to have. Don King bribed the Ring officials so badly in the mid 70's to get his fighters into the ABC boxing tournament that their ratings became laughable. How long before Delahoya's Golden Boy Promotions, who now owns Ring, has boxers under their wings getting the same behind the scenes preferential treatment? Let's just bring in Jim Lampley as Ring Magazine's rating chair who's in bed with Delahoya and any other fighter under HBO's contract. You would have Delahoya promoted fighters favored just as bad as King's were in his scandalous 1970's boxing tournament.

There's no easy fix for boxing's problems, and David Haye at #6 at heavyweight by the WBC is not that bad of a call. The reason is, the heavyweight division is so bad that I can't really think of 5 better guys ahead of him. Now David Tua, who's best was 10 years ago may be in line for title contention. But that is more the pathetic state of this division. The federations have to rate 30 fighters each month, but it's getting so hard to find any talent, that the "top 5" are really the best of the worst smelling pile of shit. The IBF puts vacancies in their contender list, which is also crap. But when you can't find a top 5, no organization can come up with good ratings for heavyweights because after anybody's #5, it's all crap. I don't care what set of ratings you follow.

Jack

You made the good point that without the Alphabet belts it'd be hard for European and Asian audiences to watch boxing. But they don't know any better. They see a guy who's 4th in his division with a belt and they will think he's the champ. It's good for ticket sales but bad overall for the sport. And that's basically the bottom line with these Boxing Cartels, they do some good, like you mentioned the WBC but overall they are scum. Just the fact that there are 3 champions, plus the WBO being recognized by some and Boxing Digest trying to bring the IBO to prominence is sickening. Also disgusting is their stripping of champions who don't make money or don't fight undeserving mandatories. I though a champion was supposed to lose his belt in the ring, these alphabet groups have stripped so many fighters I don't even count anymore. I also don't know who the WBC featherweight champ is nor the IBF, WBA, IBO, NABA, I don't care.

There's many more reasons I could name why I hate them and why they should be wiped out but that would take us a long time and many of you are already familiar with the bad side of them.

Aso you mentioned The Ring as being bribed by King. That was in the 70's and as far as I know none of the people who worked there back then are in the Ring now. The Ring's ratings are solid. Sure there might be a few disagreements with some minor details of the ratings but there always are. It's not a perfect science. Apart form naming Vitali the Heavyweight champ I haven't seem them make many major blunders.

I agree about the rankings, any ranking system is based off of subjectivity of some sort and is not perfect but the Ring is far closer to reality than the alphabets orgs.

I agree a whole lot with Jack.


YES it sucks having multiple bodies and YES it sucks when champions can't (won't?) fight each other, but consider this:

* Without sanctioning bodies, would we ever have heard of, for example, Bernard Hopkins or Winky Wright? When they were recognised as champions by the IBF, we (the boxing world at large) were prepared to recognise Felix Trinidad and Shane Mosley as more credible champions.
The ONLY reason Hopkins and Wright got to fight them was because they held an IBF belt. If there was just one Ring Magazine belt, like some on here would love to campaign for, who would have fought Trinidad and Mosley? It would have just been a rehash of faded big name fighters, whoever would make the most money for the 'champions'. Hopkins and Wright, and countless other deserving but 'dull' names would be consistently passed over, because HBO and the general public wouldn't have asked for them.
When there are no mandatories, no stripping of belts or no official purse-bids, it gives a free pass for the 'champion' to fight whoever they like, not whoever deserves it.

* Ring Magazine have made their own whopping blunders...we've already mentioned Klitschko, but how about Rosendo Alvarez being named Ring champion based on his win over Beibis Mendoza, despite the fact Jorge Arce was as credible a titlist as either of them? How about Hugo Cazares and Ivan Calderon being for the Ring belt when one was having his first fight in the division and the other having failed to face any of the title holders? How about Bernard Hopkins-Winky Wright being possibly the least deserving light-heavyweight title fight in history (a whopping ONE recent light-heavyweight fight between them coming in, and that over a guy who's claim to being a champion was tenuous at best)?

* The sanctioning bodies RIGHTLY get panned everytime they sanction a ridiculous mismatch as being for one of their belts. But the worst mismatch I've ever seen, masqueraded as a title fight was actially a Ring Magazine title fight....remember MA Barrera and Kevin Kelley? Absolute ugh. If that had been for a WBC belt instead, Ring would have absolutely creamed themselves in disgust.

* The main point of the Ring belt is that it doesn't strip champions. But champions SHOULD be stripped. If you're a champ, and you refuse to face your top contender, or don't fight for 18 months, you SHOULD be bloody stripped. It's when the sanctioning bodies go against their own rules and REFUSE to strip unworthy holders that I get annoyed.



It's not often you get support for the sanctioning bodies, but when the alternative is Ring Magazine making it up as it goes along, I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt.




Black

I think we should ignore the WBC and let the WBU control the boxing world. Or the WBF. Either one of those is good with me.

Jack

The Ring Magazine giving their belt to RJJ was another major blunder.

I think a few two title belts are good.



It helps wider coverage for the sport, bigger audiences, better chance for more boxers and can help generate interest in big unification matches for the average fan.


The problem is when instead of 2 professional bodies, you get the 500 that we have now.


The WBC and either the IBF/WBA would be fine. All the others should be scrapped.


2 champs per division is cool with me. Having someone like Lennox Lewis as the WBC champ and Herbie Hide as the WBO champ is ridiculous.

I actually support them on that. I know everyone will say Dariusz Michalczewski was the 'linear' champion, but I have two problems with that.

1/ The 'linear' title is different from the 'world' title. If the linear champ retires, then comes back two years later, he's still the linear champ, but there'd be a new world champ. Therefore, Ring weren't obligated to name the 'linear' champ their 'world' champ.

2/ Michalczewski's claim to the 'linear' title was tenuous anyway. He gets it by winning two alphabet straps from Virgil Hill, but I don't see how Hill could be the linear champ in the first place, having won only two of the three recognised alpha-belts. In fact, there hadn't been a true linear champ since Bob Foster retired, or Archie Moore before that, and so on.





Black

What about Michael Spinks? When he unified against Qawi that really gave him undisputed status. I mean why wouldn't Spinks be linear champion?

Jack

Yup, good point, and since Spinks relinquished the title and went up to heavyweight, who would become the linear champ after him?


See, this is my problem with linear titles. I don't really think they mean a whole lot, because they only date back to when the previous holder gave them up or moved up in weight, which these days is too often for a linear title to boast any credibility.


Unifying all three belts, now THAT is a worthy achievement. There hasn't been a crappy fighter done that...well, EVER! But there have been some stinkers who people have called 'linear champs', like Shannon Briggs, for instance.



Black

Michelczewski's claim to the LHW title was more legit than Jones' claim.

Michalczewski's claim to the 'linear' title was more legit, yes, but that's different to an 'undisputed' claim.

If you interpret the WBC, WBA and IBF titles as the requirements to being undisputed, then Jones was the undisputed champion. If you've decided to accept the WBO belt, then no he wasn't.

Either way he was closer than Dariusz, who could claim a closer link to the 'linear' title, but like I said earlier, I don't hold much stock in that made up title anyway.



Black

What the hell are you talking about? Who gives a damn about the alphabet titles anyway? They are nothing more than worthless trinkets fit to garner garbage cans [think Riddick Bowe and the WBC belt] - but, since you brought them up - two of the three alphabet titles Jones "claimed" @ 175lbs were first stripped from Dariusz M then handed to Jones on a silver platter. So, there was nothing undisputed about Jones' claim as the "undisputed" champ @ 175lbs seeing that Dariusz M was the rightful owner of two of the three alphabet titles Jones "owned".

Any way you slice it, Dariusz M's claim to the 175lb title, linear, undisputed, or otherwise was more legit than Jones' bogus claim. Period, end of story...

Ah, now you're criticising your own theories. If the alphabet titles mean nothing, how did Dariusz Michalczewski become 'linear' or 'undisputed' champion in the first place?

I take it you refer to his win over Virgil Hill, because Virgil Hill held two belts. But if the belts mean nothing, how did beating Hill and winning his two belts make Michalczewski a linear or undisputed champion?

Either the belts mean something or they don't. You can't say they meant something when Michalczewski won them but not when Jones won them. I'm sure you'll mention Jones winning vacant belts that were stripped from Michalczewski, but you're either going to recognise the three belts or not.

If you do, then Jones was champion because he held all three.

If you don't, then Michalczewski was never any kind of champion to begin with.



Do you get me?



Black