What's better, WBA or WBC?

Question

Always wondered as people say both.

Answer 1

WBC has a better reputation than the WBA...  Though they are both legitimate titles or belts in boxing, you can tell the quality of these abc's of boxing through their rankings or belt holders..

Answer 2

They both are corrupt and they both don't care about the fighters.  Their only concern is to rake in as much money as possible.  The WBA recognizes 2 champions in each weight division- a "super" champion and a "regular" champion- that is the stupidist thing I have ever heard of.  The WBC has shown favoritism towards numerous fighters and promoters over the years.  When Mike Tyson came out of prison after not having fought for 4 years, the WBC ranked him as the number 1 contender.  Erik Morales' only fight at lightweight was a loss to Zahir Raheem, yet he was their number 1 contender.  The only true CHAMPION's belt is the Ring Magazine belt- the Ring's champions are considered the true champs in their respective divisions and deservedly so.  The Ring does not strip its fighters for not having worthless mandatory defenses like the sanctioning bodies do.  The only way to lose the Ring title is by losing it in the ring, retiring, or moving to another weight division- thats the way it used to be, and thats the way it should be.  I have the utmost respect for the Ring's championship policy and I always call their champs the TRUE champions in their weight divisions; I consider all of the other titleholders just that- "titlists."

Answer 3

Boxers regard the W.B.C. belt better,  but with so many belts the Ring magazine belt is regarded best

Answer 4

Of the three "major" sanctioning bodies (WBA, IBF, and WBC) it would be hard to call one of them simply "better".  

All are corrupt, all make nothing fighters into overnight contenders, and all sap more money from their fighters than the gas corporations.  Jose Sulaiman runs the WBC, and he's a very cordial, well-spoken man to meet in person, but he's the head of a council whose job is to 1) MAKE MONEY with 2) protect fighters' lives and well-being ranking a DISTANT second!!!

Answer 5

WBA is the oldest so some say that this organisation is the most reputable, however the WBC is known as the most prestigious belt to hold of the 4 main organisations.

As the answerers above have said the ring magazine belt seems to be what the big boxing fans look to nowadays though as everyone has lost faith in the organisations to be truthful.

Answer 6

If you mean which is most prestigious, then yes the WBC is more highly regarded but the Ring Belt is what everyone takes as face value for the best fighters.

Answer 7

WBC belt is regarded the top belt in the world and the more reconised belt.

Answer 8

Word boxing assosiation and world boxing council? What the h**l does it matter which is the best they are both titles at the end of the day,one is from a council and one is from an assosiation

Answer 9

The WBA was the original sanctioning body and so should be thought of as better. The WBC was only created around 1963/64, but the WBC is now regarded as more credible than the WBA (this has probably been over about the last 20 years). The WBA is a bit keener on mandatories and stripping titles, even where the titleholder is clearly the best.  The Ring champion is definitely now considered the true champion in any division.

Answer 10

none are better its all just politics but its all down to the boxer who holds that particular title wether wba wbc wbo or ibf  it matters not i mean look at ricky hatton maybe not the best of the best but he go's out to prove who is, win or lose and even with the ibo title he has proven its the boxer that makes the title