Is the IBF the WORST organization in boxing?
Otis Miller
Chris Byrd
1. Not Rated
2. Not Rated
3. David Tua
4. Hasim Rahman
5. Vitali Klitschko
6. Fres Oquendo
7. Clifford Ettiene
8. Kirk Johnson
9. Lou Savarese
10. Maurice Harris
11. Lamon Brewster
12. Evander Holyfield
13. Mike Tyson
14. Charles Shufford
15. Jameel Mcline
I just don't understand how Lou Savarese could be ranked #9 and Tyson #13
Jpsems418
because of Lou's recent win and Tyson's recent lost? Just Like Holyfield being
ranked under The Rock..Evander's recent lost dropped him well below Rahman even
though Holy has a win over him.
JoeyP
Mister Saint Laurent
(with one being the most "prestigious" and 10 being the least, relatively
speaking of course):
1. World Boxing Council
2. International Boxing Federation
3. World Boxing Association
4. World Boxing Organization
5. International Boxing Organization
6. World Boxing Union
7. International Boxing Association
8. International Boxing Council
9. World Boxing Federation
10. National Boxing Association
--
Mister Saint Laurent
-------------------------------------------
M...@mistersaintlaurent.com
www.mistersaintlaurent.com
407-362-4757 407-489-0299
-------------------------------------------
Jason B
ranked higher than the World Boxing Federation. LOL!
I do think they give their titles to better fighters, but they are still
pretty much a regional title. NBA tends to favor Florida boxers - hey,
I don't want to diss a title that I may get an easy shot at :) - and the
WBF was created for the Tennessee/Kentucky/Ohio fighters.
I thought the WBU was banned, at least in the US?
BTW, you forgot the IBU, WBB, and WAA for "world" titles. Out of all of
the belts, the IBU has the best looking belts,IMHO. I think they are
made by the same guy who makes the belts for wrestling(WWE)
charles.beauchamp
"Mister Saint Laurent" <mrsaint...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021230041007...@mb-md.aol.com...
> Out of the 10 semi-active "world" sanctioning bodies, I rank them as
follows
> (with one being the most "prestigious" and 10 being the least, relatively
> speaking of course):
>
>
> 1. World Boxing Council
> 2. International Boxing Federation
> 3. World Boxing Association
> 4. World Boxing Organization
> 5. International Boxing Organization
> 6. World Boxing Union
> 7. International Boxing Association
> 8. International Boxing Council
> 9. World Boxing Federation
> 10. National Boxing Association
>
>
>
>
> --
> Mister Saint Laurent
>
This is kind of like rating the most honest liar. The most decent sex
offender. Rediculous. And how on Earth did you determine any of this silly
list.
I say they are all in a tie for worst.
v/r Beau
DKM
Does it make sense to anybody? I don't mean understanding it or knowing why
they do, but does any one think, "That's the correct way to do it?"
"Otis Miller" <otismil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:20e3272d.02122...@posting.google.com...
Jpsems418
>
>v/r Beau
I find myself agreeing with you, but I am in favor of some sort of ranking
system in which fighters get a mandated Title shot or the champ must lose his
title.
JoeyP
charles.beauchamp
"Jpsems418" <jpse...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021231232655...@mb-da.aol.com...
That's why I should be appointed by President Bush as the Federal Boxing
Czar.
v/r Beau
Mister Saint Laurent
>BTW, you forgot the IBU, WBB, and WAA for "world" titles. Out of all of
>the belts, the IBU has the best looking belts,IMHO. I think they are
>made by the same guy who makes the belts for wrestling(WWE)
Didn't forget them. But at last glance, they had way too many vacant "world"
titles. Most people have a hard time keeping track of the 3 major sanctioning
bodies, I try to keep track of the 10 that at least have regular activity.
Mister Saint Laurent
>
>
>"Mister Saint Laurent" wrote:
>> Out of the 10 semi-active "world" sanctioning bodies, I rank them as
>follows
>> (with one being the most "prestigious" and 10 being the least, relatively
>> speaking of course):
>>
>>
>> 1. World Boxing Council
>> 2. International Boxing Federation
>> 3. World Boxing Association
>> 4. World Boxing Organization
>> 5. International Boxing Organization
>> 6. World Boxing Union
>> 7. International Boxing Association
>> 8. International Boxing Council
>> 9. World Boxing Federation
>> 10. National Boxing Association
>>
>> --
>> Mister Saint Laurent
>>
>
>
>This is kind of like rating the most honest liar. The most decent sex
>offender. Rediculous. And how on Earth did you determine any of this silly
>list.
Can one liar not be more honest than another? Is a 27 year old who sleeps with
a 16 year old not less morally corrupt than someone who molests a 3 year old?
As for how I determined my list, I used critical thinking and logic. Sorry if
that is not par for the course here. The WBC clearly has the most impressive
list of champions compared to any other sanctioning body and has proven to be
the most prestigious championship in boxing.
That doesn't mean I like the WBC, I'm just stating facts.
The IBF gets the number 2 slot by default. The WBA is by far the worst of the
big 3, but still gets the nod over the WBO due to the mainstream media's
universal acceptance of the WBC, IBF, and WBA, with the WBO only getting
partial recognition by the media.
The IBO may be a distant 5th, but a clear 5th nonetheless. With Lennox Lewis
and Roy Jones proudly wearing their belts, as well as the fact that they have
computerized rankings and some acceptance in Europe, they certainly seem to be
considered more prestigious by most than the WBU or IBA. The WBU is also
recognized in Europe and has been around longer than the IBA. George Foreman
wearing their belt when he was the real boxing champion of the world and wasn't
recognized by the big 3 hasn't been forgotten either. As for the IBC, WBF, and
NBA, the amount of exposure each has received really is the factor that sets
them apart. The NBA title is worn by Roy Jones, but so is the WBF's, and the
WBF has championship contests regularly in South Africa.
Disagree? Well speak your piece my friend. Maybe my list seemed silly, but
ignoring the fact that holding one of the belts at the top of the list compared
to one at the bottom can mean the difference of millions of dollars? That seems
*really* silly.
Mister Saint Laurent
>I'll never get over the idea of having vacant spots in the rating.
>
>Does it make sense to anybody? I don't mean understanding it or knowing why
>they do, but does any one think, "That's the correct way to do it?"
It helps to avoid mandatory challengers receiving their position soley through
attrition. To be ranked 1 or 2 in the IBF, you have to beat another top
contender in a box-off. It may have made more sense to force the number 1
ranked contender to beat another top contender to become the mandatory
challenger, but then you start to water down the rankings (because suddenly the
new number 1 isn't the real number 1). If it bothers you so much to see "1
VACANT, 2 VACANT", fill in the blanks with the WBC and WBA champions.
Ulrich Mayring
>
> The IBF gets the number 2 slot by default. The WBA is by far the worst of the
> big 3, but still gets the nod over the WBO due to the mainstream media's
> universal acceptance of the WBC, IBF, and WBA, with the WBO only getting
> partial recognition by the media.
When you look at the champions, then the WBO is on par or better than
the WBA and IBF. What the WBO is lacking is breadth, but their champions
are good.
Ulrich
YoBro521
>are good.
I could be wrong, and for boxing sake, I hope I am wrong. But, isnt the WBO the
same organization that ranked a dead guy? Please, clarify this one.
Again, I could be wrong, and I hope so.
Kylemac
The IBF is by no means the worst ratings organization in the world. In
fact, there's a reason the WBC and WBA are not headquartered in the
US: regulation.
I give respect to the "new" IBF because they are overseen by the
government and have their criteria examined by an outsider. However, I
have a major problem with Marian W. Muhammad as the president --
considering her husband is a promoter, and an infamous one at that.
As for their ratings, the IBF's rating commissioner Joe Dwyer (one of
the most honest guys you'll ever meet, has the division set up so the
best must fight the best to earn the no. 1 ranking (and a shot at the
title.) I agree with the idea, since that's why David Tua and Chris
Byrd squared off and why Tua and Rahman will do it again soon. Not
having a no. 1 rated fighter is "ugly," but when one is named, he's
earned it.
However, I also have troubles understanding the ratings from no. 4
down. But that doesn't mean the IBF is rating the top heavyweights. It
rates the top heavyweights "fighting for its title."
It's obvious Lennox Lewis doesn't want the IBF title, so why rate him?
Here's my thoughts:
No. 3 - David Tua - has a long history in the IBF. Has fought in two
prior eliminators and held a continental belt and USBA title at one
time.
No. 4 - Hasim Rahman - like Tua, he has a long IBF history. He held
its heavyweight, intercontinental belt and USBA title. This is
Rahman's second eliminator, but after getting hosed on the last one,
I'm surprised he's fighting for the IBF again.
No. 5 - Vitali Klitscho - Let's face it, just because he quit against
Byrd doesn't mean he's a bad fighter. By beating up two continents of
tomato cans, he's earned the mean-nothing slot. Hey, the long list of
losers he's fought have him rated higher in other ratings
organizations.
No. 6 - Fres Oquendo - He's on the comeback trail. His loss to Tua
doesn't diminish the prior work he accomplished.
No. 7 - Clifford Ettiene - an admitted travisty. A "draw" against
Botha isn't enough to warrant a top 10 rating, considering the high
level of suspect opposition he's faced recently. The last decent win
was his war against Lawrence Cley-Bay two years ago.
No. 8 - Kirk Johnson - Another ratings travisty. Only "big" win came
against Oleg Maskaev two years ago. The first fight I saw him in was
the Al Cole #1 fight. 'Nuff said. Poor conditioning. Poor work ethic
in the ring. Not a true champ.
No. 9 - Lou Savarese - Lou is here not because he earned it, but
because others have lost, retired or are in jail. His loss against
Tyson will always make him a suspect, but he has two decent recent
wins against Tim Witherspoon and David Bostice. Loss to Michael Grant
forgiven by win against Mount Whitiker.
No. 10 - Maurice Harris - Unforgivable. How can a guy who competed in
a non-sactioned Thunderbox tourney be rated for his performance?
Harris does have a history in the IBF, since he was the only one
willing to fight Chris Byrd in an eliminator.
No. 11 - Lamon Brewster - Very disappointing. This guy's record is
well short of world-ratings potential. Lots of tomato cans on his
record, but his win against Tommy Martin is giving him ratings help.
No. 12 - Evander Holyfield - He won't be fighting for any title
anytime soon. This is a correct rating, even though he could beat
several ahead of him. His time has come and passed.
No. 13 - Mike Tyson - They seem to be giving him his hat at the door.
Though Tyson is a big draw, the IBF discounts his championship
potential. Good move.
No. 14 - Charles Shufford - Two words: Wladimir Klitschko loss.
No. 15 - Jameel Mcline - Tough to rate a guy who panics in the ring
any higher. He could beat a lot of the fighters on the list, but his
recent loss to WK means he has to earn the shot with new wins.
"DKM" <dkm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<18tQ9.1974$j%1.439...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>...
Jobox1
xyz
charles.beauchamp wrote in message
<27yQ9.519202$%m4.1...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
And now that the Repubs have the Senate, you would be confirmed easily.
charles.beauchamp
"xyz" <zyx_m...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6pLQ9.23943$p_6.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Yet another great benefit of the November elections.
v/r Beau
charles.beauchamp
From where I sit they are both child molesters and beyond repugnant so it
doesn't make a difference.
> As for how I determined my list, I used critical thinking and logic. Sorry
if
> that is not par for the course here. The WBC clearly has the most
impressive
> list of champions compared to any other sanctioning body and has proven to
be
> the most prestigious championship in boxing.
>
The list of champions is directly proportional to how much the organization
can steal in sanctioning fees which explains why the WBC is the only one of
these bodies that has been successfully sued in Federal courts by a stripped
champion.
> That doesn't mean I like the WBC, I'm just stating facts.
>
> The IBF gets the number 2 slot by default. The WBA is by far the worst of
the
> big 3, but still gets the nod over the WBO due to the mainstream media's
> universal acceptance of the WBC, IBF, and WBA, with the WBO only getting
> partial recognition by the media.
>
You rate credibility based on media exposure. Therefor your entire argument
is by default worthless. Why? Because the media has an agenda and doesn't
generally pay enough attention to the fact that none of these bonehead
sanctioning bodies should be trusted. The actions that these organizations
conduct are criminal by any definition and are no less respectable then the
mafia.
The rest of this silliness is snipped.
v/r Beau
Ulrich Mayring
>
> I could be wrong, and for boxing sake, I hope I am wrong. But, isnt the WBO the
> same organization that ranked a dead guy? Please, clarify this one.
I know that one organisation ranked a dead guy once, but don't know
which one it was. Supposedly it was a problem of updating: they had
updated their rankings internally, when the guy died, but did not
publish them at that time.
Ulrich
Ivan Weiss
"Ulrich Mayring" <ulr...@mayring.de> wrote in message
news:3E14B67D...@mayring.de...
IIRC it was Steve Larrimore.
--
Ivan Weiss
Vashon WA http://www.baseball116.com
Proud to sponsor the Smead Jolley, Zeke Bonura, Dale Alexander,
and Bob Fothergill pages at www.baseball-reference.com
Mister Saint Laurent
>> Can one liar not be more honest than another? Is a 27 year old who sleeps
>with
>> a 16 year old not less morally corrupt than someone who molests a 3 year
>old?
>>
>
>From where I sit they are both child molesters and beyond repugnant so it
>doesn't make a difference.
What if the girl was 18? Who decided on that age? What was the reasoning behind
it? The law doesn't determine what's right or wrong, only what's legal and
illegal. Just because all the sanctioning bodies are/were corrupt doesn't mean
that one title belt can't carry more prestige than another.
>
>> As for how I determined my list, I used critical thinking and logic. Sorry
>if
>> that is not par for the course here. The WBC clearly has the most
>impressive
>> list of champions compared to any other sanctioning body and has proven to
>be
>> the most prestigious championship in boxing.
>>
>
>The list of champions is directly proportional to how much the organization
>can steal in sanctioning fees which explains why the WBC is the only one of
>these bodies that has been successfully sued in Federal courts by a stripped
>champion.
When in the wrong, change the subject, list irrelevant information, and speak
incoherently to cause confusion.
You mind explaining how the WBC lawsuit diminishes the talent of Lennox Lewis,
Roy Jones, Bernard Hopkins, Oscar De La Hoya, Vernon Forrest, Kostya Tzyu, and
Floyd Mayweather?
>> That doesn't mean I like the WBC, I'm just stating facts.
>>
>> The IBF gets the number 2 slot by default. The WBA is by far the worst of
>the
>> big 3, but still gets the nod over the WBO due to the mainstream media's
>> universal acceptance of the WBC, IBF, and WBA, with the WBO only getting
>> partial recognition by the media.
>>
>
>You rate credibility based on media exposure. Therefor your entire argument
>is by default worthless. Why? Because the media has an agenda and doesn't
>generally pay enough attention to the fact that none of these bonehead
>sanctioning bodies should be trusted. The actions that these organizations
>conduct are criminal by any definition and are no less respectable then the
>mafia.
Never once did I use the word credibility. I simply commented on what I
perceive to be the pecking order of the organizations based on their level of
*prestige.* Let's check our dictionaries for a second:
"Prestige - weight or credit in general opinion"
The WBC, WBA, and IBF are universally recognized by the media. The WBO is
partially recognized by the media. The general opinion is that the WBC, WBA,
and IBF are the only belts that matter. When fighters speak of unifying, they
mention the WBC, WBA, and IBF. They want to be the "undisputed" champion.
Your disdain for the alphabet groups may be warranted, but your blatant
disregard for the facts is asinine.
Being the WBC champion may not mean any more to you than being the IBA
Continental Americas champion, but last time I checked the world didn't revolve
around you.
If you get off on changing my words, you might be better off keeping it to
yourself. Everything I've said is documented and you look like a fucking idiot
ignoring the subject and babbling about something else.
charles.beauchamp
> >From: "charles.beauchamp"
>
> >> Can one liar not be more honest than another? Is a 27 year old who
sleeps
> >with
> >> a 16 year old not less morally corrupt than someone who molests a 3
year
> >old?
> >>
> >
> >From where I sit they are both child molesters and beyond repugnant so it
> >doesn't make a difference.
>
>
> What if the girl was 18? Who decided on that age? What was the reasoning
behind
> it? The law doesn't determine what's right or wrong, only what's legal and
> illegal. Just because all the sanctioning bodies are/were corrupt doesn't
mean
> that one title belt can't carry more prestige than another.
>
This part of the thread is rediculous and doesn't even make your point well.
>
> >
> >> As for how I determined my list, I used critical thinking and logic.
Sorry
> >if
> >> that is not par for the course here. The WBC clearly has the most
> >impressive
> >> list of champions compared to any other sanctioning body and has proven
to
> >be
> >> the most prestigious championship in boxing.
> >>
> >
> >The list of champions is directly proportional to how much the
organization
> >can steal in sanctioning fees which explains why the WBC is the only one
of
> >these bodies that has been successfully sued in Federal courts by a
stripped
> >champion.
>
>
> When in the wrong, change the subject, list irrelevant information, and
speak
> incoherently to cause confusion.
>
Not only did I not change the subject I flat out explained away your
argument. The WBC, WBA and IBF exist solely for the purpose of collecting
sanctioning fees to line their pockets. So for the moment the WBC has a list
of fighters at the top of their various corrupt ratings that are more famous
in general then the WBA. That doesn't in my view mark them as a better
organization or more prestigious. It simply tells me that they brand
certain guys as champion based on name recognition (i.e. Roy Jones Jr) no
matter the legitimacy.
> You mind explaining how the WBC lawsuit diminishes the talent of Lennox
Lewis,
> Roy Jones, Bernard Hopkins, Oscar De La Hoya, Vernon Forrest, Kostya Tzyu,
and
> Floyd Mayweather?
>
See above. If you can't get that then your not trying.
>
> >> That doesn't mean I like the WBC, I'm just stating facts.
> >>
> >> The IBF gets the number 2 slot by default. The WBA is by far the worst
of
> >the
> >> big 3, but still gets the nod over the WBO due to the mainstream
media's
> >> universal acceptance of the WBC, IBF, and WBA, with the WBO only
getting
> >> partial recognition by the media.
> >>
> >
> >You rate credibility based on media exposure. Therefor your entire
argument
> >is by default worthless. Why? Because the media has an agenda and
doesn't
> >generally pay enough attention to the fact that none of these bonehead
> >sanctioning bodies should be trusted. The actions that these
organizations
> >conduct are criminal by any definition and are no less respectable then
the
> >mafia.
>
>
> Never once did I use the word credibility. I simply commented on what I
> perceive to be the pecking order of the organizations based on their level
of
> *prestige.* Let's check our dictionaries for a second:
>
Well if your not talking about credibility then what are you talking about?
Prestige and credibility must go hand in hand or it doesn't really mean
anything.
> "Prestige - weight or credit in general opinion"
>
And since we are talking about the media and I say they perpetuate the
corruption by giving credibility (see your own definition of prestige....3rd
word after the -) to these rediculous organizations. The sport needs to be
cleaned up andone obvious place to start is debunking these self appointed
organizing bodies.
> The WBC, WBA, and IBF are universally recognized by the media. The WBO is
> partially recognized by the media. The general opinion is that the WBC,
WBA,
> and IBF are the only belts that matter. When fighters speak of unifying,
they
> mention the WBC, WBA, and IBF. They want to be the "undisputed" champion.
>
I know exactly what they want. And I also know that it is a perversion to
call a man an undisputed champion when he isn't the Lineal champion. Also
the real value in a historical sense of all the alphabelt titles diminishes
the accomplishment of real champions. The average fan can't tellthe
diference. If HBO or Showtime call a fight a world title fight they don't
know the difference. I should think that fans that care enough about the
sport though to bother talking about it in an open forum such as this though
should care a little bit more then most. Therfore what I say stands. These
sham agancies are all worthless. Toss them. Stop recognizing them and
encourage fighters to cease paying the fees. Lennox Lewis is world champion
whether the WBA,WBC, IBF, WBO etc notice or not.
> Your disdain for the alphabet groups may be warranted, but your blatant
> disregard for the facts is asinine.
>
What facts am I disregarding? I'm not only aware of the facts, I'm
maintaining the real facts.
> Being the WBC champion may not mean any more to you than being the IBA
> Continental Americas champion, but last time I checked the world didn't
revolve
> around you.
>
Last time I looked no one I know could tell you the name of one single
Continental America's champ and didn't much care.
> If you get off on changing my words, you might be better off keeping it to
> yourself. Everything I've said is documented and you look like a fucking
idiot
> ignoring the subject and babbling about something else.
>
>
You sir are a dolt. I have not changed a single word you have said. I have
disagreed with you. You have come to a dubious conclusion based precisely
on what I said you did in a previous post. The media said so. That's your
argument apparently. Enjoy.
Ya Lennox Lewis is Heavyweight Champion because the WBC said so. OK.
v/r Beau
Mister Saint Laurent
>Not only did I not change the subject I flat out explained away your
>argument. The WBC, WBA and IBF exist solely for the purpose of collecting
>sanctioning fees to line their pockets. So for the moment the WBC has a list
>of fighters at the top of their various corrupt ratings that are more famous
>in general then the WBA. That doesn't in my view mark them as a better
>organization or more prestigious. It simply tells me that they brand
>certain guys as champion based on name recognition (i.e. Roy Jones Jr) no
>matter the legitimacy.
Somebody asked if the IBF was the worst organization in boxing. As silly as I
think the sanctioning bodies are (the only belt that matters to me is the Ring
magazine belt), I listed the top ten organizations and ranked them in order of
what I perceive to be their importance because I thought it was unfair to label
the IBF as the worst organization when top to bottom, it's pretty clear that
the only belt with more prestige is the WBC one.
Look at the numbers. Being the WBC champion will make you more money than being
any other champion.
I'm all for the man who beat the man. I was very excited when I heard the WBC
lost its lawsuit with Rocchigianni. However, I can't allow that to keep me from
being objective when analyzing the sanctioning bodies.
I listed Lennox Lewis, Roy Jones, Bernard Hopkins, Oscar De La Hoya, Vernon
Forrest, Kostya Tzyu, and Floyd Mayweather. Find me a different champion in any
of those weight classes that you think would beat the WBC champions I listed.
For someone who only cares about the man who beat the man, isn't the WBC less
"evil" for recognizing more lineal champions as the "world" champion than any
other organization?
You say all the alphabet groups are shit.
Maybe so.
That doesn't change the fact that the groups have different levels of
importance in the sport. Maybe they shouldn't have any importance, but they do.
You are obviously a very stubborn man who lives life with blinders on.
I state facts, you change the subject. Then you reply with crap like, "I didn't
change the subject, the ABCs are corrupt."
So?
Did I say they weren't? Why don't you try addressing my points.
charles.beauchamp
Obviously your simply disagreeing to disagree now. Especially as I have
addressed everything you stated and not changed the subject though you keep
stating that I have. Whatever. Dude, I made a funny. The ABCs are all
corrupt. Your odd statement about child molestation didn't sway my view,
but hey! Live life. There isn't anything to be gained from changing my
mind.
The WBC doesn't get any points from me for their recognition of more Lineal
champs since they don't recognize the champs because of their Lineal claims.
They recognize fighters that will pay their sanctioning fees (bribes).
Plain and simple so no I don't give them more credit for fleecing a more
well known list of fighters. It's all rediculous. I don't view things with
blinders. If that were the case frankly I wouldn't know what I'm talking
about regarding title lineages etc that have been addressed in this thread.
You disagree or stated an opinion. I questioned it. Frankly I don't think
you put 1/10 of the thought to the original post where you listed all of
these idiotic ABC groups.
Do the sport andf fighters a favor. Stop paying mind to the alphabelts.
v/r Beau