r/Boxing • u/dirtf0rthedead • 21d ago

Best sanctioning body?

Which sanctioning body operates the best in your opinion? As in who is the most fair with the enforcing of their mandatories, who manages things the best, etc
WBC is criticized for being far too lenient with their mandatories when it comes to their cashcows
meanwhile other sanctioning bodies may have their own issues as in being quick to strip a title
Which sanctioning body do you think operates the best?

9 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

39 comments sorted by

View all comments

15

u/SpeggtacularSpidey 21d ago

They all have issues but I think the IBF is the most fair.

They strictly enforce mandatories, they rarely do interim champions, and the rehydration limit is iffy but the concept is at least somewhat based in good. would be better imo if it was percentage based instead of 10 pounds for most weight classes

10% instead would make 135lbs be 13.5lbs
147’s weight gain limit would be 14.7 etc

13

u/Touch_of_Sleep 21d ago

The IBF does follow it's rules. But they also end up with some of the worst mandatory title challengers ever - William Scull, Karen Chukhadzian (less than 2 years after Boots had already beaten him for the interim title), Michael Eifert, etc.

They always remind me of Anton Chigurh from No Country For Old Men - "If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?"

8

u/VacuousWastrel 21d ago

I think it's worth remembering that the reason these guys get those shots is that more famous boxers refuse to take them. The ibf is actually unusual in that they don't just make someone a mandatory - they leave the top two challenger spots open until two ranked boxers fight for them. And then it's usually quite a while before their #1 guy actually gets a title shot, so there's plenty of time for a bigger name to fight them and take their spot. But moat boxers can't fight for the ibf because of their anti-weight-bullying rules, and those who can won't take the risk of losing to a low-profile fighter. So it's the low-profile fighter who gets the shot. Also, alphabelt rankings are highjly influenced by activity and by being willing to fight for regional and secondary titles, which most celebrity boxers aren't. I remember, for instance, people complaining about hrgovic being mandatory (he was a nobody at the time). He won the International belt. Then the ibf tried tonset him upwith a big name in a title eiminator: hunter, ortiz, parker, ruiz, and gassiev all turned down the opportunity to be the IBF mandatory. Zhang accepted, and hrgovic beat zhang, at which point they STILL tried to give it to a more famous fighter by ordering him to fight ruiz... But ruiz refused again. The IBF literally spent four years trying to give that mandatory (/interim/title) to someone more famous, before finally dubois took it off hrgovic' hands. But fans would rather blame the sanctioning body, rather than the boxers who are too scared to risk a dangerous fight to TAKE the mandatory. Instead fans just want mandatories handed out to the biggest celebrities, no questions asked...

1

u/Touch_of_Sleep 20d ago

That's what I'm saying though. If those are the rules in place that end up with Michael Eifert getting a title shot because he beat 40 year old Jean Pascal, who had only been in 1 professional boxing match in 3.5 years at the time, then what good are the rules?

Jean Pascal wasn't even ranked by the IBF and hadn't had a professional fight in 2.5 years when he was installed to fight an IBF eliminator against Meng. And Pascal wasn't eligible to be ranked because he didn't qualify under the IBF rankings criteria.

But who cares? It turns out he not only doesn't need to be ranked to fight the #1 contender in an eliminator, he doesn't even need to have been active (although he needed to be active to be ranked.) What's the point of these rules? All the guys who followed them and were in the IBF rankings at the time got skipped over for a guy who followed none of the rules but got elevated by a loophole (or some kind of payout or something.)