What entitles a sanctioning
organization to be called credible?
When we recently asked a
website why they re-wrote a media press release sent to them to
exclude a previously included reference to a prominent I.B.O.
champion, their answer was, "we only include ‘credible’ sanctioning
bodies." Well, with that criteria and a definition of credible such as
"worthy of belief" or "deserving of credit," we wondered
what the word credible really means in boxing as it relates to
sanctioning bodies. From what we can gather, it’s been based solely
upon the length of time a sanctioning body has been in business. Does
this make sense? Our rapid rise in recognition has been based upon
what we believe should be the real criteria for a sanctioning bodies’
credibility: honest ratings, operating with integrity, truthfulness,
and ultimately, the quality of our champions. We will continue to earn
respect and credibility through our actions and hope that those with
the power to label sanctioning bodies as credible or not, will base
their conclusion on those attributes, not merely by the length of time
we have been in existence.