Will this be a major belt soon? It's gaining some credibility and they have one champ per weight class as far as I know. They seem to be the anti-WBA.
I am now seriously starting to believe that alphabets are disappearing from the sport. The sanctioning bodies will exist but their fees are going to drop dramatically, since they don't get you or the fights the same publicity they used to, since even the most hard-core fans don't know who has which belt and and since no promoter wants to pay for some useless title belts. IBO seems like the best title belt and had it existed in the 90s it could have changed the course of boxing politics. Of course, had it actually existed back then, it would probably be as corrupt as the others. Now it is too little, too late to make a difference
Totally. I used to pay attention and bitch about them in my younger years. I stopped following all belts a while back and life is way better. I just want to see good fights
NO Sanctioning Body Thread is VALID Until mikE Spews his Customary Brand of Contrarian BULLSHIT... REED:shit #2:
Can we have a PPV main event 12 round fight without a tittle on the line? Or is it a universal rule that all non title belts should be 10 rounds top?
I guess it depends on what you mean by 'rules'. There are no universal laws of course, so if you want to make a 45 round fight like they did in the glory days, go for it. I believe none of these major sanctioning bodies (nor EBU or its associates) ever has 12 rounders other than title fights. But now that the sanctioning bodies are fading away, it could change
I would love it if at least one sanctioning body went back to 15 rounders. Truth be told, it is the shotgun marriage of TV, and related revenue, to boxing that has done away with the 15 rounder and not health or safety concerns.
That's always cited as a reason, but boxing was on TV for decades before the death of the 15 rounder.
The IBO does computer rankings that are generally pretty accurate. However, rating fighters should be done by people, imo. In a pure sense, I like it when a guy ranked #5 is the guy you'd pick to win over fighters #6-#100. However, there is an accepted practice of having to 'earn' a title shot and that generally comes with beating ranked guys.
The IBO is nothing more than a footnote and that seems unlikely to change. While I argued that the WBO belt was equal to the other 3 for a while before that became generally accepted, we are now at a point where the WBO is the strongest candidate for being viewed as the best sanctioning body. They used to be more interchangeable and arguable, but it is clearly like this for me now: 1. WBO 2. WBC (Close to WBO, stronger history) 3. IBF (not close to top 2) 4. WBA (a fucking mess. Not close to top 3) If someone could get Shant's site back up, I would support this more with examples of why. The WBO makes far fewer dumbass moves than the other 3. I put the WBC and the IBF in a similar ranking of making stupid moves, it's just that the WBC does more things better than the IBF.
Yes it was, but it TV changed a lot since then, and boxing changed with it, especially given that TV Revenues became the dominant funding, rather than gate attendances.
True, but in the 1980s TV's program map (whatever that actually is in English) was changed and programs of the main channels were planned in one-hour blocks.Thus, every program lasted 30, 60 or 90 minutes or so. You can't show a 15 rounder in an hour but a twelve-rounder fit the schedules perfectly, thus the change. Te irony was that the same channels dropped boxing out within a couple of years anyway
Ok, if it had been known by the public in the 90s (had it entered the scene at the same time as WBO for example) it might have made a difference
Lewis definitely was. After the 2nd Holyfield fight, one of his flunkies was holding it up behind Lewis,
