Printable View
Hear me out here.
What if we (the general boxing public) only recognized one Alphabet organization.
Granted they are all corrupt and stuff, but if we all stood together and said
THIS ORGANIZATION IS THE ONE THAT DICTATES THE CHAMPS and consider
all the other ones to be minor titles, wouldn't that help?
Which one would you back? I recognize the The Ring, and I think that's as good as it's going to get.Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheep
That's what people like Max Kellerman, B-Hop, and others are trying to do. They are trying to use the RING rankings and champions as the recognized champs. The other champions in the division are just "beltholders." I think that the government needs to step in and stop this madness. The WBA is absolutely ridiculous; they can technically have four champions, a regular champion, an interim champion, a champion in recess, and a super champion. That's absolutely ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheep
The Ring would be good, I kind of give more credit to the WBC than the others. Don't get me wrong though they are all corrupt.Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanE
The WBC is traditionally the most prestigioius belt, but they undermine their own credibility all the time, ie the Peter/Maskaev situation. I suppose two most significant in my mind are the WBC and the IBF. Most of the legit champs are the WBC holders. The WBA and the WBO are minor, to me, but then again, who could deny that Joe C is the real champ at SMW and he's only got the worthless WBO belt. The stupid IBF strips Hatton. Idiotic.
Well, I look at the WBC as the major sanctioning body. However, Jose Suliman is Don King's lapdog. I wonder if they will ever come clean, and admit that Don King practically runs that body.
The reason the Ring will always be better than the sanctioning bodies for this is because The Ring makes its money selling magazines, not belts. It doesn't need to, and doesn't, collect sanctioning fees, so you can't (a la Carlos Baldomir) fail to win a title simply because you didn't pay for it. Nor can you lose a title for failing to fight some bullshit "mandatory" who stands no chance and whom no one wants to see (see, e.g., Cott-Urkal).
Anyone who beats the champ should become the champ. And the champ shouldn't be able to lose his title unless he loses it in the ring (or retires). The Ring is the only organization that adheres to these rules.
Once upon a time i kinda looked at how good a champion was by the belt he held; but now IMO the ABC belt is only worth something if the champion is actualy good.
Basicaly for some time now i have considered only the person who has the ring belt as a champion at said weight... some cases i do make exceptions for though, i consider wlad as the champion at heavy as the others seem to have no interest in fighting him and the IBF will force pointless shit fights on him.