Rank the Titles

[BIG FELLA]

I'm just interested as to how you people rank the diffrent Alphabets

Personally i rank the WBA WBC and IBF the 3 major belts


OPBF PABA best regional belts

the rest i dont really rank, Im interested in all your opinions

[Phil Austin]

Each to his own, I guess - I obviously reckon something different! :p

[COULDHAVEBEEN]

I'm just interested as to how you people rank the diffrent Alphabets

Personally i rank the WBA WBC and IBF the 3 major belts

Certainly agree with these 3 in terms of world titles.

Even the IBF hasn't been around that long. Though at least they are way ahead of the other, more recent additions.

When you take a step back and think about it, it's a disgrace that there's more than one world title! How can a bloke say he's the best in the world when there's any number of other guys who can say the same thing! How many worlds are there - only one last time I looked!

Commonwealth titles used to be well respected and sought after by Aussies. But it seems that they've drowned in the alphabet soup.

.

[T.C.W]

I rank none of them, there all a total joke, the lot of them.

[Kegsy]

At the moment the way i rank them these days...
WBC..WBA...WBO & then IBF.

IBF especially is doing terrible things of stripping fighters for not having fought their dodgy mandatories.
The reason why they have become so strict in their defense is after their corruption investigations a few years back.
They have been forced to follow all their rules strictly.

WBA is a joke with their 3 champs in 1 divisions.
WBO has vastly improved IMO in recent times.

IBO is always getting more & more credible too.

[ipswich express]

All much in a muchness. They get you a ranking with the body.

[T.C.W]

At the moment the way i rank them these days...
WBC..WBA...WBO & then IBF.

IBF especially is doing terrible things of stripping fighters for not having fought their dodgy mandatories.
The reason why they have become so strict in their defense is after their corruption investigations a few years back.
They have been forced to follow all their rules strictly.

WBA is a joke with their 3 champs in 1 divisions.
WBO has vastly improved IMO in recent times.

IBO is always getting more & more credible too.The reason is there only one in USA is IBF and have Mandatories, I think IBO is USA based aswell.
But the IBF has the government looking at them all the time mainly the FBI and they can jailed in USA, the others if you have notice at all round the USA in Latin countries, so that USA can't investigate them, They got BOB LEE back in 99 and he went to jail, the US government should make the IBF the only one that can put at title fight on because there in USA and can be held accountable by government departments.

[WhataRock]

All the same shit, they are as bad as each other.

[Marcus]

I like the WBC and IBO...... i just like the look of the belts :good and Geale is a IBO WORLD Champ :happy

[daz52]

All the same shit, they are as bad as each other.

:deal

[DaSweetScience]

I am very comfortable with the big 4 WBC, WBO, WBA, IBF. The WBO is a johnny come lately but Calzaghe and Marco Antonio Barrera were proud WBO champions and did a huge job validating them.

There are 4 majors in golf and tennis and not too many lurkers get a belt from the big 4.

Its hard to stamp out interlopers as the sanctioning fee business can be a very steady earn.

[Da_Hurricane_Briggs]

I rank

1. WBC
2.WBA
3. IBF
4.WBO
5. IBO ***

Dont rate the IBO at all as it is a bit of a joke some of these title matches at the moment ....like Dib , Geale v Dawson ( for a world title..cmon) , medley has fought for IBO , asiku will on oct 25 , darchinyan won the IBO recently ..i mean no disrespect to any of these guys but i think the fact that Geale is IBO "World" Champ is actually disrespecting the other champs in other divisions ..but will do Geale a tremendous help in his career in regards to positioning himself into other fights ..but IBO seems abit amatuerish much like the WBU ( Mirovic v Calloway ..which andy raymond played off as a legitimate world title..which in theory it is ..but it has no weight in boxing)

Also i am going to contradict myself here but i can see the IBO becoming one of the biggest in the near future alongside wbc , etc for 2 reasons .

1/ IBO champions dont have to defend the belt as much and dont get stripped if they unify a division and dont defend against so and so ( like IBF seem to be doing alot lately )..ricky hatton has been one that has come out and praised the ibo for this and reckons alot of fighters will target this belt because of this ...

2/ now in its infancy it can sanction world title fights basically in any big name fight these days ..such as Katsidis v Diaz recently , also hopkins v calzaghe , tarver v roy i think was as well or one of tarvers fights recently was for a ibo world title ( help me out here guys) ...and when u get some big names holding your belt ...the belt starts to get a bit of respect ...

[ipswich express]

I rank the Ring Magazine as the true indicator. For the record, pretty sure Mirovic v Calloway was for the WBF strap. Not WBU.

[JOSEY WALES]

Certainly agree with these 3 in terms of world titles.

Even the IBF hasn't been around that long. Though at least they are way ahead of the other, more recent additions.

When you take a step back and think about it, it's a disgrace that there's more than one world title! How can a bloke say he's the best in the world when there's any number of other guys who can say the same thing! How many worlds are there - only one last time I looked!

Commonwealth titles used to be well respected and sought after by Aussies. But it seems that they've drowned in the alphabet soup.

. Good call ref the Commonwealth titles , when you look at the fighters from around the world who back in the day pissed blood attempting to capture one of these historic titles it should be held in a much higher regard than a few of these Mickey Mouse nasty plastic belts , im a firm beliver in the old school way about things from a British perspective ie , Welsh , Brit , Commonwealth & European titles first then if good enough a stab at a proper World title fight , when you look around and see some of these guys who proclaim to be "World Champion " these days it shows a complete lack of respect to the memory of some of the fighters who fell just short attempting to win a Commonwealth title . :deal

[Barge FTA]

European and North American regional titles are the best.
However, the belt doesn't really matter. it depends on who is fighting for that belt.
If the best fighters want the belt, then it gives it credibility. at one stage there, the number 1 ranked light heavy held the IBO belt.
the worst belts are the ones that allow too many voluntary defences before they enforce a mandatory.

[BIG FELLA]

I rank

1. WBC
2.WBA
3. IBF
4.WBO
5. IBO ***

Dont rate the IBO at all as it is a bit of a joke some of these title matches at the moment ....like Dib , Geale v Dawson ( for a world title..cmon) , medley has fought for IBO , asiku will on oct 25 , darchinyan won the IBO recently ..i mean no disrespect to any of these guys but i think the fact that Geale is IBO "World" Champ is actually disrespecting the other champs in other divisions ..but will do Geale a tremendous help in his career in regards to positioning himself into other fights ..but IBO seems abit amatuerish much like the WBU ( Mirovic v Calloway ..which andy raymond played off as a legitimate world title..which in theory it is ..but it has no weight in boxing)

Also i am going to contradict myself here but i can see the IBO becoming one of the biggest in the near future alongside wbc , etc for 2 reasons .

1/ IBO champions dont have to defend the belt as much and dont get stripped if they unify a division and dont defend against so and so ( like IBF seem to be doing alot lately )..ricky hatton has been one that has come out and praised the ibo for this and reckons alot of fighters will target this belt because of this ...

2/ now in its infancy it can sanction world title fights basically in any big name fight these days ..such as Katsidis v Diaz recently , also hopkins v calzaghe , tarver v roy i think was as well or one of tarvers fights recently was for a ibo world title ( help me out here guys) ...and when u get some big names holding your belt ...the belt starts to get a bit of respect ...

Welll said Hurricane,
I totally agree with your comments, And no disrespect to Geale but he isnt on the level of PavlIk and Abraham. Really he is still an up and coming prospect.

[Marcus]

WORLD CHAMPIONS
Heavyweight
Cruiserweight
Light Heavyweight
Wladimir Klitschko
(Ukraine)
Johnathon Banks
(USA)
Antonio Tarver
(USA)
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
[Only registered and activated users can see links] [Only registered and activated users can see links] 51-3
Record: 20-0
Record: 27-4
Middleweight
Welterweight
Light Welterweight
Daniel Geale
(Australia)
Isaac Hlatshwayo
(South Africa)
Ricky Hatton
(Great Britain)
[Only registered and activated users can see links] [Only registered and activated users can see links] [Only registered and activated users can see links] 19-0
Record: 28-1
Record: 44-1
Lightweight
Super Featherweight
Featherweight
Juan Diaz
(USA)
Billy Dib
(Australia)
Fernando Beltrán
(Mexico)
Photo to come. [Only registered and activated users can see links]
Photo to come.Record: 34-1
Record: 21-0
Record: 31-3-1
Bantamweight
Super Flyweight
Flyweight
Silence Mabuza
(South Africa)
Zolile Mbityi
(South Africa)
Nonito Donaire
(Philippines)
[Only registered and activated users can see links] Photo to come. [Only registered and activated users can see links] 22-2
Record: 32-13-3
Record: 19-1
Strawweight


Nkosinathi Joyi
(South Africa)


[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[WhataRock]

IBO...Aussie-SA belt???

[Phil Austin]

Yep Rock, along with the States, Europe and Mexico!

[Phil Austin]

To be honest one of the things I like is the fact that it isn't just all about money with the IBO - no super champions, no interim champions (The WBA just had a world title and an interim title on the same card at the same weight - well done!). Mandatories are quite often a bane on the fight public and the champion; some of the mandatories enforced in the past are laughable match-ups from the IBF, WBC etc that have led to blatant mis-matches and quite often have more to do with the challenger's promoter than his ability. Are they sanctioning bodies or match-makers?
Hopkins-Calzaghe was never for an IBO title; Tarver was already our champion at the weight and we won't just strip any champ for sanctioning fees... unlike what happened to Roccigiani. Tarver has been IBO champ a couple of times and ditched the WBC title at one stage to fight for itas it was a better match-up fan-appeal and dollarwise for him to do so. Hatton has ditched the IBF title to concentrate on his IBO title and Malinaggi has as well so he can challenge Hatton. Some of the biggest names have been attracted to the IBO - Jones, Lewis, Hamed, Hatton, Tarver, Johnson and the list goes on and on. You are right though Hurricane; the IBO is growing and will continue to grow as we are looking at being an alternative to what some of these other organisations have been doing, and it should be about the fighter at the end of the day.
Geale is pointed out over his strength as a champ - you could scrutinise all other bodies and find champs that might not appeal. Geale will continue to get better and better and Mundine looms in his future

[BIG FELLA]

To be honest one of the things I like is the fact that it isn't just all about money with the IBO - no super champions, no interim champions (The WBA just had a world title and an interim title on the same card at the same weight - well done!). Mandatories are quite often a bane on the fight public and the champion; some of the mandatories enforced in the past are laughable match-ups from the IBF, WBC etc that have led to blatant mis-matches and quite often have more to do with the challenger's promoter than his ability. Are they sanctioning bodies or match-makers?
Hopkins-Calzaghe was never for an IBO title; Tarver was already our champion at the weight and we won't just strip any champ for sanctioning fees... unlike what happened to Roccigiani. Tarver has been IBO champ a couple of times and ditched the WBC title at one stage to fight for itas it was a better match-up fan-appeal and dollarwise for him to do so. Hatton has ditched the IBF title to concentrate on his IBO title and Malinaggi has as well so he can challenge Hatton. Some of the biggest names have been attracted to the IBO - Jones, Lewis, Hamed, Hatton, Tarver, Johnson and the list goes on and on. You are right though Hurricane; the IBO is growing and will continue to grow as we are looking at being an alternative to what some of these other organisations have been doing, and it should be about the fighter at the end of the day.
Geale is pointed out over his strength as a champ - you could scrutinise all other bodies and find champs that might not appeal. Geale will continue to get better and better and Mundine looms in his future

I like the Mandatories bit, But that could also turn around and bite you on the arse if a guy who really deserves a crack at the belt cant get one as the champ is to busy fighting for big money.

Then again i wish we could have one champ per division and fighting for an Australian Title was between our best 2 fighters in that division and over 12 rounds.
I wish we could get rid of a few of the weight divisions.:-( :-(

i might as well start believing in Father Christmas and the tooth fairy though as weve got no chance of that happening with the way boxing is being raped at the moment by a lot of people ( not talking about you Phil)

[Phil Austin]

There is a provision within our rules BigFella so that option is always there. Those circumstances are weighed up in a few different ways before they are imposed and done rarely where a bloke as you say might really deserve a shot or a champ hasn't defended in some time.
No offence taken at your comment mate and I agree with you - some people are raping the sport and it is the point of the IBO to be different. To be honest, if we were just more of the same it would be pointless to be in existence

[Phil Austin]

we are also on the same page regarding some of the weight divisions which I believe should not exist either. I have also always been of the opinion that Aussie titles should be over 12 but that is just MO. Good to see we can agree on some things mate!

[BIG FELLA]

There is a provision within our rules BigFella so that option is always there. Those circumstances are weighed up in a few different ways before they are imposed and done rarely where a bloke as you say might really deserve a shot or a champ hasn't defended in some time.
No offence taken at your comment mate and I agree with you - some people are raping the sport and it is the point of the IBO to be different. To be honest, if we were just more of the same it would be pointless to be in existence

No worries Phil, If its true what your saying then the IBO might really take over from the likes of the WBA and there 2 champ set up and the IBF and there Mandatories. Its good your on here even though you probably get critisism, as you can explain how the IBO actually works.

[Phil Austin]

Thanks mate, that is my aim mainly: to get across the message of the IBO, talk to others about boxing (I socialise outside of boxing circles), and also get a feel from the fans about issues that are important

[T.C.W]

the WBA are complete joke, they rank along side of WBF, IBA and these jokers, having 3 world champions in the same divsion like they have in 115 divsion and having a 122 title fight and interm 122title fight on the same card which happened last weekend, just flat out amazes me, i hate them

[BIG FELLA]

we are also on the same page regarding some of the weight divisions which I believe should not exist either. I have also always been of the opinion that Aussie titles should be over 12 but that is just MO. Good to see we can agree on some things mate!

It really amazed me that it changed from 12. If you cant fight 12 rounds you arnt worthy of fighting for the Australian Title. Thats just my opinion.
There shouldnt be guys that have 3-5 record fighting for the Aussie title when there are far better guys in the same division.
I see were Brad was coming from when they changed it but my opinion was that if they cant fight 12 they shouldnt fight for the belt, Not that it should be less as the guys going for it were less experienced.

Look around the world and i bet that most other countries fight there title over 12.
Honestly the Aussie title should be held in Higher esteem and young fighters should strive to be the Aussie champ, Then they should be looking to fight for Commenwealth titles and OPBF PABA belts.
Then on to World titles be it WBA WBC IBF WBO IBO or whatever.

Im rambling on a bit now and could keep going for ages but will leave it at that.

[Phil Austin]

My thoughts exactly Big Fella - although worded a little differently! If you are not ready for 12 rounds you are not ready for the national title.

[roscoe]

I'm with Ips the ring belt for me but with that saying I pick the best fighter in the division & stick with him regardless if he holds the belts or not.

[DaSweetScience]

My thoughts exactly Big Fella - although worded a little differently! If you are not ready for 12 rounds you are not ready for the national title.

This thread has lifted my spirits considerably since the Adam Watt news today.

I could not concur more. Cutting it back to 10 rounds for the national title has devalued the title to a dangerous level. Using the "health" line is ridiculous as other belts can waltz in and contest over 12 rounds and have seemingly more integrity and without apparently risking their fighters health. If its for health reasons then it should apply to all fights in Australia. A bit like Carbon credits. It only makes sense to take the risk if what you are doing is the industry standard and everybody complies.

Under the current system, if an Aussie fighter is loyal to the Australian title and gets a world title shot, that career critical fight is the first time that that fighter will have fought a 12 rounder which puts him at a huge psychological disadvantage.

Can you imagine the A-League playing 35 minute halves or any other sport compromising its national title to a lesser standard than the world standard? How can that do anything but decrease the integrity of the title and consequentially the quality of the fighters produced by that system!

When I am trying to analyse an upcoming fight, a key tale of the tape is how many 12 rounders has each guy fought?. Why? Because that is the currency of world class fighters and if we are to develop world champs from our domestic system and not have them run to America we have to replicate all of the conditions required to be a world champion. And that elite standard is 12 rounds for championship fights, shut the gate.

I exchanged vigorously with a couple of ANBFers at the Golden Gloves launch and from what I have heard, the health argument just doesnt stack up. All i see is devalued tradition, reduction in fighter quality and a confused marketplace.

In the old days fighters were classed as a 4 round fighter or a 6 round or an 8 round or a 10 round fighter as they progressed up the ranks and developed confidence and stamina. That moment in time when he fought a 12 round fight was for a belt and was a big thing and I can't believe we have taken that away from our fighters as a final stepping stone and "coronation".

For 100 years in this country a 12 round fighter was considered the top of the game, a main event fighter. This is the same for the rest of the world and hard to imagine that this fundamental law of boxing was overlooked when the decision to reduce national titles to 10 rounds was taken.

I think we all agree the strength of the Australian national linear title is the most critical element of the return of boxing to its former glory. The national title is a sacred thing with deep history and it should not be positioned as lesser. Particularly when until 1985, national titles were contested over 15 rounds and a lot of people still yearn for the real "championship rounds 13-15".

For a sport to mainstream it has to be clearly and concisely understood by the sea of casual fans that it needs to convert. Trying to explain to a casual that the Australian belt is more important than the WBA Pan African or WBO Latino or the WBF or IBO or IBU and various Pan Pacifics when one belt is contested over 10 rounds and the rest of the belts are over 12 rounds is virtually impossible. And if you explain the health argument to them it makes our national title fighters look like they are mollycoddled and can't hack regional title conditions. Like you are still on your L Plates, as one of my eager to understand mates concluded.

If the world boxing bodies agree to transition all title fights from 12 to 10 rounds like they once moved in unison from 15 to 12 rounds, then we should sign up immediately. Being 10 rounds not 12 rounds does not get us any brownie points with the AMA. They hate all forms of it from headgeared amateurs to sparring. Nothing stacks up and I see no political gain from 10 round title fights.

I think it should be repealed immediately and put down to an idea with great intentions but it is unquestionably damaging our sport while the world standard for national titles remains 12 rounds.

[BIG FELLA]

This thread has lifted my spirits considerably since the Adam Watt news today.

I could not concur more. Cutting it back to 10 rounds for the national title has devalued the title to a dangerous level. Using the "health" line is ridiculous as other belts can waltz in and contest over 12 rounds and have seemingly more integrity and without apparently risking their fighters health. If its for health reasons then it should apply to all fights in Australia. A bit like Carbon credits. It only makes sense to take the risk if what you are doing is the industry standard and everybody complies.

Under the current system, if an Aussie fighter is loyal to the Australian title and gets a world title shot, that career critical fight is the first time that that fighter will have fought a 12 rounder which puts him at a huge psychological disadvantage.

Can you imagine the A-League playing 35 minute halves or any other sport compromising its national title to a lesser standard than the world standard? How can that do anything but decrease the integrity of the title and consequentially the quality of the fighters produced by that system!

When I am trying to analyse an upcoming fight, a key tale of the tape is how many 12 rounders has each guy fought?. Why? Because that is the currency of world class fighters and if we are to develop world champs from our domestic system and not have them run to America we have to replicate all of the conditions required to be a world champion. And that elite standard is 12 rounds for championship fights, shut the gate.

I exchanged vigorously with a couple of ANBFers at the Golden Gloves launch and from what I have heard, the health argument just doesnt stack up. All i see is devalued tradition, reduction in fighter quality and a confused marketplace.

In the old days fighters were classed as a 4 round fighter or a 6 round or an 8 round or a 10 round fighter as they progressed up the ranks and developed confidence and stamina. That moment in time when he fought a 12 round fight was for a belt and was a big thing and I can't believe we have taken that away from our fighters as a final stepping stone and "coronation".

For 100 years in this country a 12 round fighter was considered the top of the game, a main event fighter. This is the same for the rest of the world and hard to imagine that this fundamental law of boxing was overlooked when the decision to reduce national titles to 10 rounds was taken.

I think we all agree the strength of the Australian national linear title is the most critical element of the return of boxing to its former glory. The national title is a sacred thing with deep history and it should not be positioned as lesser. Particularly when until 1985, national titles were contested over 15 rounds and a lot of people still yearn for the real "championship rounds 13-15".

For a sport to mainstream it has to be clearly and concisely understood by the sea of casual fans that it needs to convert. Trying to explain to a casual that the Australian belt is more important than the WBA Pan African or WBO Latino or the WBF or IBO or IBU and various Pan Pacifics when one belt is contested over 10 rounds and the rest of the belts are over 12 rounds is virtually impossible. And if you explain the health argument to them it makes our national title fighters look like they are mollycoddled and can't hack regional title conditions. Like you are still on your L Plates, as one of my eager to understand mates concluded.

If the world boxing bodies agree to transition all title fights from 12 to 10 rounds like they once moved in unison from 15 to 12 rounds, then we should sign up immediately. Being 10 rounds not 12 rounds does not get us any brownie points with the AMA. They hate all forms of it from headgeared amateurs to sparring. Nothing stacks up and I see no political gain from 10 round title fights.

I think it should be repealed immediately and put down to an idea with great intentions but it is unquestionably damaging our sport while the world standard for national titles remains 12 rounds.

Well written mate, Our title should be held in higher regard.

[Phil Austin]

From my point of view DSS the last couple of rounds proved the difference between true champion and contender. Imagine how the real oldies (read: Allan Moore haha!!) feel: It was always thought that The Championship Rounds were 11-15! I could not imagine Lonsdale Belts being contested over 10 can you?

[BIG FELLA]

From my point of view DSS the last couple of rounds proved the difference between true champion and contender. Imagine how the real oldies (read: Allan Moore haha!!) feel: It was always thought that The Championship Rounds were 11-15! I could not imagine Lonsdale Belts being contested over 10 can you?

We have to stop agreeing like this Phil. 15 rounders would be great

[Phil Austin]

very true BF - people will start to talk. Now when are you gunna buy me that fucking car!? :p

[perfect jet]

As much as boxing orgs are all about beating their own drums and raking in cash along the way ( it's hard to separate the lot of them in that regard), I find the IBO's criteria for sanctioning title fights quite unique and more so, flawed.

Look at two lightweights Juan and Julio Diaz...

Diaz comes off a loss to Campbell and straight away fights for a vacant IBO belt when he is ranked #3. Katsidis was #21 or something but that's another matter...they were both ranked inside the top 35 so they meet the criteria. Not real stringent and hard for a fan to follow.

Phil, you have been a staunch advocate for the computer generated ranking systems which the IBO uses, but who really cares what the rankings are if it doesn't guarantee a shot at the title? You guys don't seem to be too fussed about them...

Where is the benefit of being ranked #1, when guys #3 and #21 come off losses to fight for the vacant belt? How can I not think that merit and reward in the ranking system means little if the IBO can pick and choose who they will sanction based on money and exposure?

Now campare that to Julio Diaz and the IBF.

Julio losses his belt to Juan Diaz and IBF president Lindsay Tucker says he cannot even fight an eliminator without first registering a win. He fights David Torres and gets the win.

Now Julio/Ganoy has been sanctioned as an IBF #2 elimination fight where the winner earns a fight against the #1 guy. A logical progression of climbing the ladder, and no one is getting skipped because only a top 15 rated fighter can fight an eliminator. And you must get the #2 position before #1.

Sure, their are sanctioning fees with both eliminators but hey, no one is getting skipped and the champion must fight the #1 guy within 3 months of winning the title. For a fan, that's a heck of lot easier to follow and far more logical than simply having a melting pot of 35 fighters, where ANY of them can fight for a title if the IBO agrees to it.

[DaSweetScience]

From my point of view DSS the last couple of rounds proved the difference between true champion and contender. Imagine how the real oldies (read: Allan Moore haha!!) feel: It was always thought that The Championship Rounds were 11-15! I could not imagine Lonsdale Belts being contested over 10 can you?

I hear you so clearly Phil. Its unAustralian to have a sub standard national title. I don't know if there is a precedent for it.

And if there is some kick arse medical report out there damning those extra 2 rounds then let every national body read it and agree.

Leveraging all of the intellectual horsepower of the posts in this thread I would like to present this one question to the ANBF.

"Respected members of the ANBF. How can it be that of our Commnowealth brethren the New Zealand, South African and England national belts are held over 12 rounds and our National belts are over 10 rounds. Does that mean they are harder or we are softer"

[Phil Austin]

As much as boxing orgs are all about beating their own drums and raking in cash along the way ( it's hard to separate the lot of them in that regard), I find the IBO's criteria for sanctioning title fights quite unique and more so, flawed.

Look at two lightweights Juan and Julio Diaz...

Diaz comes off a loss to Campbell and straight away fights for a vacant IBO belt when he is ranked #3. Katsidis was #21 or something but that's another matter...they were both ranked inside the top 35 so they meet the criteria. Not real stringent and hard for a fan to follow.

Phil, you have been a staunch advocate for the computer generated ranking systems which the IBO uses, but who really cares what the rankings are if it doesn't guarantee a shot at the title? You guys don't seem to be too fussed about them...

Where is the benefit of being ranked #1, when guys #3 and #21 come off losses to fight for the vacant belt? How can I not think that merit and reward in the ranking system means little if the IBO can pick and choose who they will sanction based on money and exposure?

Now campare that to Julio Diaz and the IBF.

Julio losses his belt to Juan Diaz and IBF president Lindsay Tucker says he cannot even fight an eliminator without first registering a win. He fights David Torres and gets the win.

Now Julio/Ganoy has been sanctioned as an IBF #2 elimination fight where the winner earns a fight against the #1 guy. A logical progression of climbing the ladder, and no one is getting skipped because only a top 15 rated fighter can fight an eliminator. And you must get the #2 position before #1.

Sure, their are sanctioning fees with both eliminators but hey, no one is getting skipped and the champion must fight the #1 guy within 3 months of winning the title. For a fan, that's a heck of lot easier to follow and far more logical than simply having a melting pot of 35 fighters, where ANY of them can fight for a title if the IBO agrees to it.


Sorry, Perfect Jet I have been meaning to reply to this but been busy with other things. You seem to love harping on about Diaz V Katsidis don't you? I'll explain it a little further and hopefully this time you understand. You bemoan the fact that #1 did not fight for it - who is number 1 mate? The IBO rank ALL fighters in the division including other champions, as they must be acknowledged for their accomplishments. We had initially been approached by Diaz before he lost to Nate Campbell, he came back to us and the fight was looked at and approved, because his opponent was ranked high enough to be sanctioned. because the top-35 is often far more competitive than other organisations because we do rate the other champions to keep them completely objective and pure in their original intention.

As to your comments on the IBF and Ganoy (No wonder you are so pro-IBF at the moment! :lol: ). What right does a sanctioning body have to play match-maker? You are correct though about all those extra juicy sanctioning fees they are collecting along the way! Up until the "wonderful" idea of these paid eliminators, fighters were just ranked 1-15 based on their merits (usually) and who they had fought (usually), now ratings come out with spots "vacant" simply so extra cash can be made along the way! I have no problem with final eliminators where two very deserving fighters fight off for the right to fight the champ - fair enough, but just milking it for all it is worth is ludicrous. The Top-100 is based soley on results v quality of opposition, there is no need for eliminators if fighters have got the spot they have earnt allready. May I remind you that Tommy Browne was not even Top-100 when he fought Injin Chi for the WBC title. Who had he really defeated to a) earn the right to be there and b) prepare him for a chance of actually winning the fight?

[Da_Hurricane_Briggs]

yeh i was a bit daft in some of my examples ..but my overall point was most big name fights recently are being thrown an added sweetner by adding an IBO World title ....

I think everyone makes valid points though ..and as i said in my earlier post i think the IBO will become stronger by having some of the big names holding there belts ...

and i think every boxing fan would love to see one world title back ..or even 3..but we are never going back there ppl coz its all about the $$$$$ , and it wouldnt surprise if we get a few more bobbing up ..

and i no this will open a can of worms but ...perhaps one day we may even see another entity in australian boxing ..all it needs is someone with a bit of cash ....someone to say ...ok cool willy u have a mandatory with zappa ( for example ) ..would be good to see ...a bit pie in the sky i no...