Boxing Betting: Belts, bribes and 51 world champions

Boxing Betting / Editor / 28 October 2008 / 1 Comments

A proliferation of low-grade fights for almost meaningless titles has damaged boxing. But which, asks Richard Douglas, are the belts worth winning?

The boxing lexicon is plagued with bogus titles these days. Dip your spoon in a bowl of alphabet soup and you have half-a-chance of pulling out the initials of a governing body.

This situation arose because promoters started to feel only a title would really sell their fight. New organisations sprang up only too willing to snap up sanctioning fees however a proliferation of low-grade matches for almost meaningless titles has damaged the sport.

In recent years there have been a couple of attempts to inject credibility into the notion of a world title. But even now there are 51 fighters who could claim to be legitimate world champions.

Here's my stab at wiping a way through this grimy game to tell Betfair punters the belts you can trust.

The Ring

In 2002 the Ring magazine re-introduced their belt in an attempt to put boxing back on a righteous path. A panel of journalists from all over the world produce a weekly top 10 for the so-called bible of boxing. There are no mandatory defences, no stripping fighters of belts and, until recently, no sanctioning fees.

That last change has whittled away the Ring belt's credibility. As has the magazine's purchase by Oscar de la Hoya's powerful Golden Boy Promotions late last year. Also, while this belt has arguably the most credence, it is considered a prize to be awarded rather than a championship to be won.

WBC

Formed a year after WBA in 1963 but widely considered the most prestigious major title,
it is the most multi-national governing body - initially created in 11 countries, their famous green belt displays flags of 161 member nations.

The WBC has led the way in safety - reducing championship fights to 12 rounds, introducing intermediate weight categories and standing-eight counts - but it has been widely criticised for an all-too cosy relationship with Don King. It also nearly went out of business when Graciano Rocchigiani successful sued them for stripping him of the light-heavyweight crown in 1998.
The recent decision to grant Vitali Klitschko the status of 'champion emeritus' - thus giving him an immediate shot at the heavyweight crown after returning from injury - was considered confusing.

Despite all this, most of the modern greats have held a WBC belt.

WBA

This is the oldest of the modern-day world belts having grown out of the National Boxing Association of America in 1962. It has always vied with the WBC for top but somehow, more of the mud of corruption seems to have stuck to the WBA.

In 1983 promoter Bob Arum claimed he had been asked for $500,000 to give Ray Mancini a title shot. The WBA also slipped down in fans' estimations for introducing the status of super-champion for exceptional or long-reigning title-holders. Bizarrely this meant the 'world title' was open for other boxers to fight for.

IBF

Bob Lee formed the IBF immediately after failing to become WBA president in 1983. It was a mere sideshow in its early days but became established later on before suffering a massive blow to its credibility in 2000 when Lee was jailed for corruption. Prosecutors claimed Lee manipulated IBF rankings for 15 years in return for bribes.

WBO

The WBO came into being when a group of Puerto Rican delegates left a WBA convention in disillusionment. After 21 years it is the newest and least prestigious of the big four belts. The WBO struggled for recognition early on in America, however Britain embraced it. Nigel Benn, Chris Eubank and Steve Collins famously scrapped over the super-middleweight belt during the 1990s. Joe Calzaghe has just let it go after almost a decade as holder.

Credibility suffered somewhat in 2001 after super-middleweight Darrin Morris moved up the monthly rankings when, in fact, he had died.

IBO

Having only started in 1993, the IBO will take much longer to gain the gravitas of the big four but it has already lifted itself above the other newcomers. The main reasons are computerised ratings which mean a fighter's ascent is entirely above board.

"Our mission is to promote honesty, transparency and doing things the right way," says president Ed Levine. It is, at least, a worthy try.

Everything else - WBU, WBF, IBC, IBA etc

All these are trinkets and baubles with no value. Forget them. The British belts seems to carry more weight, certainly the European title is much more meaningful.

Comments (1)

1. david | 28 October 2008

   The WBC is the most prestigous with out doubt for so many reason but I like to think it is the closest thing boxing has to a FIFA or IOC because it has an official mandate the WBC is the only Boxing organsiation that was asked to exist by governments. It has official linage and a reason to exist all the other are self appointed for self interest. Every great fighter has fought for the WBC Championship with out exception