Worst Boxing Org/Sanctioning Body of 2015?

[original zero]

About Time -

Believe it or not, my personal opinion of who should have won the eliminator does not change who DID win the eliminator.

Believe it or not, the winnder of the eliminator becomes the mandatory challenger regardless of I how personally scored the fight.

The champion must face the mandatory challenger because there is nothing in the IBF rules stating that original zero has to agree with the scoring in the eliminator in order for the mandatory challenger to receive his title shot.

The IBF didn't install anything. The IBF went through their rankings until two people said yes and agreed to fight in an eliminator. The winner of that fight becomes the mandatory whether I like it, whether you like it or whether the IBF likes it.

And if the champion refuses to face the mandatory, the IBF must strip the champion whether I like it, whether you like it or whether the IBF likes it.

I support the IBF acting with honest and integrity, which in this instance meant stripping the champion for refusing to face his mandatory.

In the age of four recognized orgs, plus super & interim champions, it's very common for the #1 in a specific org to not be top 10 overall. Since you don't pay close attention to boxing, I guess you weren't aware of that.

Nowhere have I said that any of this has made me happy or unhappy. I couldn't care less who is champion or who fights who. I am not a boxing fan.

My only argument is that the IBF had no choice but to strip Tyson Fury. That is a fact. A fact that makes you upset, but a fact nonetheless.



Techliam -

I have Wilder ranked over Povetkin for a few reasons. Looking at each of their last four fights, Wilder has the best scalp on his resume (TBRB has Stiverne #6 and Takam #7).

Wilder is the WBC world champion while Povetkin is the silver champion. Povetkin chooses to fight for the WBC and Wilder is the champion of the WBC. So Povetkin himself by agreeing to fight for the WBC is acknowleding that Wilder is above him. Wilder is the champion of the league Povetkin is choosing to compete in.

Looking at their most recent fights, Wilder's win impresses me more. The combined records of Szpilka's opponents in his last four fights before facing Wilder = 113 wins and 19 losses.

The combined records of Wach's opponents in his last four fights before facing Povetkin = 91 wins and 38 losses.

So Wilder has the most impressive recent win, is the champion of the league Povetkin fights in and his most recent opponent had beaten far better competition.

For those reasons, I choose to rank Wilder above Povetkin. Not to mention Povetkin lost two years ago and Wilder has never lost. Wilder is undefeated, has the most prestigious belt in the sport, and the highest ranking scalp in the current top 10.

[aboutfkntime]

About Time -

Believe it or not, my personal opinion of who should have won the eliminator does not change who DID win the eliminator.

Believe it or not, the winnder of the eliminator becomes the mandatory challenger regardless of I how personally scored the fight.

The champion must face the mandatory challenger because there is nothing in the IBF rules stating that original zero has to agree with the scoring in the eliminator in order for the mandatory challenger to receive his title shot.

The IBF didn't install anything. The IBF went through their rankings until two people said yes and agreed to fight in an eliminator. The winner of that fight becomes the mandatory whether I like it, whether you like it or whether the IBF likes it.

And if the champion refuses to face the mandatory, the IBF must strip the champion whether I like it, whether you like it or whether the IBF likes it.

I support the IBF acting with honest and integrity, which in this instance meant stripping the champion for refusing to face his mandatory.

In the age of four recognized orgs, plus super & interim champions, it's very common for the #1 in a specific org to not be top 10 overall. Since you don't pay close attention to boxing, I guess you weren't aware of that.

Nowhere have I said that any of this has made me happy or unhappy. I couldn't care less who is champion or who fights who. I am not a boxing fan.

My only argument is that the IBF had no choice but to strip Tyson Fury. That is a fact. A fact that makes you upset, but a fact nonetheless.



Techliam -

I have Wilder ranked over Povetkin for a few reasons. Looking at each of their last four fights, Wilder has the best scalp on his resume (TBRB has Stiverne #6 and Takam #7).

Wilder is the WBC world champion while Povetkin is the silver champion. Povetkin chooses to fight for the WBC and Wilder is the champion of the WBC. So Povetkin himself by agreeing to fight for the WBC is acknowleding that Wilder is above him. Wilder is the champion of the league Povetkin is choosing to compete in.

Looking at their most recent fights, Wilder's win impresses me more. The combined records of Szpilka's opponents in his last four fights before facing Wilder = 113 wins and 19 losses.

The combined records of Wach's opponents in his last four fights before facing Povetkin = 91 wins and 38 losses.

So Wilder has the most impressive recent win, is the champion of the league Povetkin fights in and his most recent opponent had beaten far better competition.

For those reasons, I choose to rank Wilder above Povetkin. Not to mention Povetkin lost two years ago and Wilder has never lost. Wilder is undefeated, has the most prestigious belt in the sport, and the highest ranking scalp in the current top 10.

That is called..... knowingly supporting a fallacy.

That is absurd, completely lacking in logic and reasoning.

Fury/Klitschko > Glazkov/Martin..... end of story.

The IBF accepted second-best, all because of flawed logic and reasoning..... and so did you.

[aboutfkntime]

Why on Earth would you rank Wilder over Povetkin? You are in a strict minority there

I can sort of understand why you'd rank Wlad there coming off a loss, but Povetkin has a far superior resume to Wilder, and Ortiz.

The top 5 for me:

Fury
Klitschko
Povetkin
Wilder
Ortiz

the rest noone really cares about in honesty. You're rankings guys like Martin, Stiverne and Pulev who'd done precious little recently.

Agreed..... good top 5.

The point is, it is obvious at heavyweight.

How could the IBF have ended up with an unknown champ ?

[LoadedWraps]

IBO should have replaced IBF anyway, guess IBF put the gun to their own head so to speak.

lol @ the IBO.

[original zero]

About Time -

Your premise doesn't make any sense. If the refs get a call wrong in the conference championship, the winning team still plays in the Super Bowl. My personal opinion of who should have won does not change who did win.

And the NFL can't prevent the winner from playing in the championship game just because some believe the officials made an error in judgement.

Glazkov won the eliminator. He waited for his shot. The IBF had no choice but to strip Tyson Fury for CHOOSING a VOLUNTARY defense instead of an OVERDUE MANDATORY.

Nothing you've said changes that. Your position is the one without logic. You don't even offer an explanation for how the IBF could have avoided stripping Fury (without losing a multimillion dollar lawsuit).

The IBF didn't accept anything. The IBF simply enforced their rules. When you enforce your rules, the top fighters will leave and fight for the orgs that break the rules for them. Nobody is claiming the IBF has the best fighters.

The only claim is that the IBF had no choice but to strip Tyson Fury (without losing a multimillion dollar lawsuit). So you continue to throw mud, but you can't counter my position. Rant and rave all you want. We both know you're a lunatic. But absolutely nothing you've said changes the following:

The IBF had no choice but to strip Tyson Fury.

[aboutfkntime]

About Time -

Your premise doesn't make any sense. If the refs get a call wrong in the conference championship, the winning team still plays in the Super Bowl. My personal opinion of who should have won does not change who did win.

And the NFL can't prevent the winner from playing in the championship game just because some believe the officials made an error in judgement.

Glazkov won the eliminator. He waited for his shot. The IBF had no choice but to strip Tyson Fury for CHOOSING a VOLUNTARY defense instead of an OVERDUE MANDATORY.

Nothing you've said changes that. Your position is the one without logic. You don't even offer an explanation for how the IBF could have avoided stripping Fury (without losing a multimillion dollar lawsuit).

The IBF didn't accept anything. The IBF simply enforced their rules. When you enforce your rules, the top fighters will leave and fight for the orgs that break the rules for them. Nobody is claiming the IBF has the best fighters.

The only claim is that the IBF had no choice but to strip Tyson Fury (without losing a multimillion dollar lawsuit). So you continue to throw mud, but you can't counter my position. Rant and rave all you want. We both know you're a lunatic. But absolutely nothing you've said changes the following:

The IBF had no choice but to strip Tyson Fury.

No dude, YOUR premise makes no sense, and is lacking logic and reasoning.

You admitted that Glazkov should NOT have been ranked as a top 10 fighter..... and no way should Charles Martin be ranked either.

For arguments sake, lets rank them 11 and 12.

Well..... IF the 11th and 12th ranked teams ever play for the superbowl, then give me a call..... until then, forget it

[original zero]

About Time -

My premise is that nothing in the IBF's rules would have allowed them to sanction Fury-Klitschko II.

That is not my opinion. That is absolute fact.

You continue to whine and moan, but nothing you've said counters my position.

The IBF can't force anyone to fight for them. They rank the fighters interested in fighting for the IBF. They go through their rankings in order offering eliminators until two fighters say yes.

Once you win that eliminator, the champion must face you when the mandatory comes due.

All of this is very straight forward. Very simple. Completely logical.

You say Charles Martin shouldn't be ranked in the top 10, but krikya360.com, Ring Magazine and TBRB all have him ranked in the top 10 and the WBO had him ranked #1 before he fought for the title.

So why are you still crying about the IBF having him #4 instead of complaining about the WBO having him #1?

If there were four major American football leagues of similar recognition, each with 32 teams of similar quality, it's very possible that one of those leagues would end up with #11 and #12 playing for their title.

But none of that changes the fact that the IBF had no choice but to strip Tyson Fury. My position remains unchallenged.

[aboutfkntime]

About Time -

My premise is that nothing in the IBF's rules would have allowed them to sanction Fury-Klitschko II.

That is not my opinion. That is absolute fact.

You continue to whine and moan, but nothing you've said counters my position.

The IBF can't force anyone to fight for them. They rank the fighters interested in fighting for the IBF. They go through their rankings in order offering eliminators until two fighters say yes.

Once you win that eliminator, the champion must face you when the mandatory comes due.

All of this is very straight forward. Very simple. Completely logical.

You say Charles Martin shouldn't be ranked in the top 10, but krikya360.com, Ring Magazine and TBRB all have him ranked in the top 10 and the WBO had him ranked #1 before he fought for the title.

So why are you still crying about the IBF having him #4 instead of complaining about the WBO having him #1?

If there were four major American football leagues of similar recognition, each with 32 teams of similar quality, it's very possible that one of those leagues would end up with #11 and #12 playing for their title.

But none of that changes the fact that the IBF had no choice but to strip Tyson Fury. My position remains unchallenged.

My premise is a lot shorter and simpler than yours.....

* Klitschko/Fury are the 2 best heavyweights on the planet

* Glazkov/Martin are NOT among the best heavyweights on the planet

* The IBF are completely INEPT for sanctioning that as a title fight

* Their " rules " are ABSURD, and will not be taken seriously by anyone who understands the sport of boxing..... NOBODY thinks that Martin is the best heavyweight on the planet, so the IBF appear to be a second-rate organisation

You support the absurd, and I do not..... let's just leave it there ^^

[original zero]

Fury and Klitschko are two of the top heavyweights on the planet, but they don't currently fight for the IBF. The IBF can't force a fighter to fight for them.

krikya360.com, Ring Magazine and TBRB all say that Martin *is* among the best heavyweights on the planet. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but the WBO had him ranked #1, so it makes no sense to obsess over the IBF having him ranked #4.

The IBF had no choice but to sanction Glazkov vs. Martin as a title fight. They were the two highest ranked IBF fighters that were willing to fight for the IBF.

You are free to consider the IBF a second rate, first rate or 80th rate organization if you want. Absolutely nothing you've said changes the fact that the IBF had no choice but to strip Tyson Fury.

I support the IBF acting with honor and integrity. I accept that acting with honor and integrity means that the top fighters will choose to fight for the orgs that will break the rules for them.

Nowhere have I said that the best fighters fight for the IBF. Nowhere have I said that being IBF champion makes you the best fighter.

All I've said is that the IBF had no choice but to strip Tyson Fury.

You have failed, over and over, to counter my position.

If you believe the IBF is a 2nd rate org, then why are you so upset about 2nd rate fighters fighting for their title? What is the real issue here? Problems at home? Lack of ***? Problems at work? A boss that treats you poorly? What is it that you're really so upset about?

[LoadedWraps]

Fury and Klitschko are two of the top heavyweights on the planet, but they don't currently fight for the IBF. The IBF can't force a fighter to fight for them.

krikya360.com, Ring Magazine and TBRB all say that Martin *is* among the best heavyweights on the planet. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but the WBO had him ranked #1, so it makes no sense to obsess over the IBF having him ranked #4.

The IBF had no choice but to sanction Glazkov vs. Martin as a title fight. They were the two highest ranked IBF fighters that were willing to fight for the IBF.

You are free to consider the IBF a second rate, first rate or 80th rate organization if you want. Absolutely nothing you've said changes the fact that the IBF had no choice but to strip Tyson Fury.

I support the IBF acting with honor and integrity. I accept that acting with honor and integrity means that the top fighters will choose to fight for the orgs that will break the rules for them.

Nowhere have I said that the best fighters fight for the IBF. Nowhere have I said that being IBF champion makes you the best fighter.

All I've said is that the IBF had no choice but to strip Tyson Fury.

You have failed, over and over, to counter my position.

If you believe the IBF is a 2nd rate org, then why are you so upset about 2nd rate fighters fighting for their title? What is the real issue here? Problems at home? Lack of ***? Problems at work? A boss that treats you poorly? What is it that you're really so upset about?

You're right, we shouldn't care about inconsistencies and agendas of a sanctioning body.