Are world tidles now completely irrelevant?

Seeming as we now have world tidles, interim tidles, super tidles, international tidles, tidles emeritus, diamond tidles and ring tidles- Is there any point being a world champion?

You don't get any real credibility for it- and you have to pay stupid fee's...

What are the benefits?

 

Other then a nice tag to your career (2 weight world champion) and something to belts to make cabinet's look nice there's no real significance anymore IMO.

I mean casuals will think 'boy he must be quality', but when you get hardcore lads they can easily tear a mans resume at world level to shreds.

Sad really, every young boxer's dream is to be champion of world..

 

So true

 

Tidles?

 

i dont think they're completely irrelevant, you can always say you were world champion to your grandkids still, but i do think that getting the ring belt would be more improtant to me personally if i had the ability

 

Not in general no. World titles mean as much as ever in terms of marketing fights and making people involved in boxing money.

But to me, yes they are unfortunately meaningless :-(

The way it's going, all those dreams will be coming true soon.

 

And this era, boxing makes their dream come true!!!

World Titles completely irrelevant? No

Every now and again we see a special fighter win a world title and that is completely relevant.

 

^^ Yeah good shout Jim, TBH it's the fighters you fight that make the titles what they are and that's what is good about Ring title.

 

very true lads.

 

**** titles

 

Well you found a positive

 

How are we defining title?

Is it WBC, WBA, IBF & WBO only?

What about an Interim belt or a WBA Ordinary?

Would an IBO belt count if it was against a big enough name e.g. say Amir Khan fought JM Marquez for the IBO 140 crown next would he be a 2 time world champ?

Ring Belts - Have all match ups for this belt been up with the prestige behind the name?

 

there are but you have to separate the crap from the rest. For example Wlad is the WBA, IBF, WBO....Povetkin and Haye have never been 'world champions'.

 

I like the ring belts but there's unquestionable bias from the mag towards gbpromotions

 

This. I think Nathan Cleverly cops a lot of unmerited flack on this forum, and one of the main issues that some folk seem to have is with him is that he has only ever won vacant titles. However consider for a moment that Carl Froch has only ever fought one reigning champ in his career - Charles Adamu.

The reason as to why it would be churlish to attempt to undermine his achievements in this same manner is when consider the strength of his co-challengers for those titles: Alan Page, Damon Hague, Jean Pascal and Arthur Abraham. So yes it is the calibre of the opponent which bestows on the belt legitmacy.

And to answer Jeff's initial question, titles (not just world titles), are unfortunately still immensely important, althought undoubtedly not nearly as relevant as they once were.

Sky are still (largely) enforcing their policy that all shows require a legitmate belt at the top of the bill, (although they have mercifully relaxed this policy somewhat allowing Kell Brook to fight Ndou, Jackiewicz and Matt Hatton for intercontinental baubles).

Furthermore world level prospects are still perceived to require one of the big four to legitimise their hype, and cement their status; Hatton's WBU reign is largely neglected these days despite containing several victims who were legitmate world level opponents.