Chavez Jr misses post fight drug test....

WBC is as shady as it gets.

 

Its no worse than the IBF, is it? :dunno:

 

They are all corrupt. The WBC is just blatant about it.

 

Anyone know if they made him take one after the fact? Day later?

 

As far as they go today, the IBF is actually by far the cleanest of the bunch. Save for, of course, the whole mystery man thing in Peterson-Khan ::

 

I knew the answer to it, since it was obvious. Was just pointing out that people suddenly get righteous about the rules once they lose a fight (or a game). Happens on every level.

 

Which they're perfectly entitled to do, imo.

 

You anti-steroids people make me laugh. Steroids are great. If Rubio didn't want steroids, then Chavez deserves the win.

 

B.S If anyone was on drugs it was Rubio. Dude looked like he rolled in a pile of coke right before the fight.

 

Don't let the Frankie Goes To Hollywood mustache fool you. :nono:

 

So controversial! I can't believe you just said what you said. It's outlandish. Your attitude seems to undermine everything I hold sacred. It simply can't be. What have we come to? Your statement flies in the face of everything I've been taught. I can't believe you'd say that. This is shocking. I'm shocked.

 

That's the Intent...He's a SHOCK VALUE/SHITS & GIGGLES Poster...Wishing Death & Disease Upon his Fellow Man...Holding On to Opinions like "Ali & Leonard were BORING...Chris Byrd is EXCITING"...

That's his SCHTICK...



REED:limp:

 

that's a gem of a post ::

 

Why the IBF love? If we do this objectively first by listing examples of dirt and then do it subjectively by trying to figure out who is worst, I think the IBF very well could be considered worst.

 

Certainly at the time of the Bob Lee thing, yeah, but I think Jake means since that....personally, I don't know any more. The WBC had that thing with Rocchigianni and the Frazier thing with Roy Jones.

the WBO used to be pilloried but it was more for shambolic sanctioning than any corruption, per se, things like listing dead fighters, being the last of the big 4 to be created, etc. They've had some good champions and have made a lot of money for guys who would have otherwise been frozen out. That said, the sight of Ivan Calderon festooned with WBO belts, and the Rican fighter {WV2} getting a split decision loss in a fight for a WBO title would suggest they have a homer tendency at the very least.

 

Precisely. You could've stopped there. That's why I prefaced my comment with "as far as they go today..." They've come a long way since the Bob Lee scandal. The other sanctioning bodies... haven't.

 

I don't know what everyone's problem is with the WBC. Sulyaman already said that Chavez Jr. must face Martinez. Didn't he? It's not like they don't enforce their own rules.

 

we can start the timeline wherever. I still don't think the IBF will compare favorably. It will be difficult to figure out what to count and what not to, but the IBF has a lot of stupid shit going on. For example, the IBF loves to have vacancies in their ratings. So no fighter is rated #1. That makes dickall sense. Often there is a vacancy at #2, as well.

Maybe we count this in rating the sanctioning bodies, maybe we don't. I just don't think the IBF deserves any props as being superior to the others.

 

How long did it take though? He should have been forced to face Martinez right after winning the WBC title. In fact, he shouldn't have a WBC world title at all until he fights the real champ. He's made a few defenses of his "title" and none of them were Martinez.

EDIT: Forgot to quote Double L

 

No one cares dawg.

 

Incorrect. The IBF leaves the spaces open for the purpose of creating mini-tournaments for fighters to earn a #1 ranking, as opposed to just being elevated on a whim.

What I like about that is even if fighters are wrongly ranked (and it's a problem in every sanctioning body), they still have to fight their way to a mandatory and rarely if ever does the #3 guy get to fight #15 for a shot at a title.

The counter claim to that is the IBF collecting extra sanctioning fees for said eliminators. But think about that - Judah/Paris is a $75K fight, which means the IBF gets a whopping $2,250. Had Guzman/Cayo been made, we're talking about max $50k fight, which gives the IBF $1,500.

It's not like the IBF is making a fortune on these fights.

Compare that to:
- Three champions per division in the WBA
- Silver, diamond and regular champions in the WBC

And the fact that both alter ranking as they go.

Think about it, the IBF has a champ but two vacant spots among its Top 15, which means you have 14 ranked fighters.

The WBA has three guys claiming to be champ, plus 15 ranked fighters. That's 18 guys available to challenge for mostly bullshit titles.

Even if you don't find either system ideal, it certainly stands to reason that one is far less flawed.

 

He said it after the Manfredo fight as well.

The WBC rules also state that anyone convicted of a crime should be stripped of his title, yet they continue to stand tall with Floyd.

Canelo never had to fight a single ranked 154 lb fighter on his way to the title, and even missed contracted weight, yet was still rewarded with the belt. He now gets to go more than a year before even being assigned a mandatory, even though three separate fighters have claims to such a fight.

Tim Bradley stripped of his belt, just because they felt like it.

Just let me know when you'd like for me to stop.

 

I guess I didn't make my sarcasm obvious enough. I was totally kidding. The WBC is clearly full of shit in all facets of its operation.

 

The WBA system is the worst and probably at the top of my list of things that need to be changed re sanctioning bodies. The WBC...whatever...at least you can identify what is going on...the IBF's vacancies is just stupid...the top 15 rated guys should be available to fight for the title in voluntary defenses. This is pretty much uniform throughout.

The IBF has confused mandatory designation with #1 rankings. Their system would be more defensible if the vacancies were not so prevalent, but they are. I've never had a problem with the idea of rating a guy #1 (because he is deemed to be the best challenger by the sanctioning body), but the #3 guy being the mandatory challenger because he earned the designation by fulfilling the sanctioning body's requirements. Or you just permit the #3 rated guy to leapfrog into the #1 spot when he meets sanctioning body's requirements. That's probably the better way. Not just leaving holes.

You claimed the IBF is the best by far, but you haven't cut on the WBO. What is your criticism of them?

 

But mikE, I thought you loved all sanctioning bodies equally?

 

I've never said that, have I? So why would you think that?

 

The WBA's thing is a total total joke, the WBC thing isn't far behind. But apart from all of this, I blame the networks. They could kill the Sanctioning Bodies in the morning. Remember "pooey, I spit on the belts..." ....that disappeared in a hurry once Max got the HBO gig, not because Max sudddenly got rich, but, ostensibly, because HBO don't swing that way.

 

It was sarcasm. Sulyman's words are lip-service. That's it. I was joking. My point was, the WBC doesn't even enforce its own rules.

 

The WBO just seems to lack any authority or even morals. Not sure they've ever once said "no" to Arum and/or Zanfer. I don't have a huge problem with them, but only because I never took them entirely serious. I regard them as a major organization, but never saw any real impact they've yet made.

For recent examples, Donaire and Arce basically swapping belts, while their challengers leapfrogged higher ranked opponents really didn't sit well.

Overall I don't have much of a beef with them, but really can't point to anything they do "right". The weigh-in policy would be ideal if its enforcement wasn't limited to Puerto Rico. Which by the way is something the IBF gets right - they not only monitor pre-fight, but also cap the amount of weight you can gain after the weigh-in.

 

Ha. Looks like we zinged each other over the course of this thread ::