i know when joshua and wilder were champions a lot of posters said the WBC was the most important and therefore wilder was the real champion of the division. Is WBC still the most important belt to have?
-
-
... WBC isn't less or more than the other belts...Originally posted by Madison boxing View Post -
Used to be. Its the oldest, I believe.
But they seem to find a belt and champ for everything nowComment
-
Right now I don't think you can say any alphabet org has anything you can call "prestige". The best you can do is pick out which one sucks the least. Right now that's probably the WBO or IBF.Comment
-
ibf & wbo for me
the other two are well behind i thinkComment
-
I don’t think any are more prestigious than the others. They’re all basically a money making racket these days.
All the organisations have had good champs, poor champs, paper champs.
Ring ****zine belt still holds some value though.Comment
-
I just got a belt in the mail last week so don't think it's prestigious as it used to be.Comment
-
I like the IBF as they enforce mandatories and don’t let champs go years without facing mandatories, like the WBC..Originally posted by Scopedog View Post
Just a shame their mandatories are often not very good.Comment
-
Their mandatories are some of the WORST. And 99% of the time they leave #1 and #2 spot open.Originally posted by deathofaclown View Post
I like their same day weight though. Too bad Jacobs had to CHEAT and *** that up...Comment
-
It still is IMO. Holding the WBC heavyweight title and that’s the same belt Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes etc held.
Holding the WBO title and that’s the same belt Herbie Hide and Michael Bentt held.
I know they’re extreme examples but the WBC has the most prestigious lineage, then the WBA, then the IBF then the WBO.
In terms of credibility as an organisation they’re all pretty low as they’re all corrupt but I’d say the WBA and WBC often sink the lowest.Comment
Comment